ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Golf (Economic Contribution)

Tom Pursglove: If he will estimate the contribution of golf to the economy in Scotland in the last 12 months.

David Mundell: May I begin by expressing the solidarity of the people of Scotland with the people of Belgium at this difficult time? Our thoughts, prayers and condolences go to the families and friends of all those who were killed and, indeed, everyone caught up in yesterday’s horrific events.
	Golf makes a huge contribution to Scotland’s economy. Independent analysis in 2013 showed that the game contributes more than £1 billion in revenues and supports some 20,000 jobs. There are almost 600 golf courses across the country, generating annual revenues of £582 million.

Tom Pursglove: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, and I very much share his sentiments of solidarity towards the people of Belgium at this very difficult time.
	Given the success that my right hon. Friend talks about in relation golf in Scotland, what steps is he taking to try to secure further investment in this very important industry for Scotland?

David Mundell: One new opportunity to support golf and young people in golf arose in last week’s Budget: the sugar tax element of the Budget will see investment in sport in schools in the wider UK. I hope the Scottish Government will follow through on that and use those funds to develop sport in schools, including golf—a very popular sport, as I have said. This year, we also have the opportunity to present Scotland’s golfing merits to the wider world during the British Open at Royal Troon. It will be a showcase for the world of Scotland’s golfing opportunities.

Philippa Whitford: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning my local golf course; I am the MP for Royal Troon, and we look forward to welcoming people in July.
	Will the Secretary of State discuss with Front-Bench colleagues a regional strategy for smaller airports—at Prestwick, people fly in over Royal Troon—and, while the Chancellor is in a listening mood, will they consider a VAT reduction for rural tourism, which would help many constituencies across the UK?

Mr Speaker: Presumably with a view to people then playing golf.

Philippa Whitford: But they need to come here first.

Mr Speaker: Indeed they do, as the hon. Lady pertinently observes from a sedentary position.

David Mundell: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss those issues further. I am also very interested in pursuing the proposed Ayrshire regional growth deal, which, in promoting tourism in that part of Scotland, will have golf at its heart.

Alberto Costa: May I add my contribution on this topic by saying that it was with pleasure, last week, that I saw the Secretary of State sharing a platform with the First Minister, who I am sure raised the topic we are discussing? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is an example of the two Governments working together in the interests of the people of Scotland?

David Mundell: Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that the First Minister and I met and shared a platform in St Andrews, which is of course the world home of golf. On sport, as on any matter, Scotland of course does best when Scotland’s two Governments work together.

Angus Robertson: This is the first opportunity in Parliament to put on the record our total revulsion at and condemnation of the terrorist atrocities in Brussels, as well as our solidarity with everybody affected. We join the Secretary of State for Scotland in that.
	The promotion of the Ryder Cup in Scotland was a huge achievement for the Scottish Government and the then First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). Today is the last sitting day of the Scottish Parliament. Given that he is standing down from Holyrood, may I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his remarkable tenure as an MSP and as First Minister, and pay tribute to all other MSPs from all parties who are retiring? Does the Secretary of State agree that there is much that can be built on following the success of the Ryder Cup? How does he plan to contribute to that?

Mr Speaker: I am sure that that was a courteous tribute, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I say that the first part of his question was way off the fairway.

David Mundell: Securing the Ryder Cup to be held in Scotland was a significant event. I agree that the former First Minister of Scotland has made a remarkable contribution to Scottish politics, although the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) and I will probably differ on the detail of that. What the former
	First Minister and many MSPs who are standing down—I also pay tribute to them—have done, and what we all need to do, is promote Scotland together, because that is when we get the best results for Scotland.

Angus Robertson: I will try to remain on the fairway, Mr Speaker.
	Tourism is one of Scotland’s most important industries, and golf and whisky are key drivers for people visiting the country. Does the Secretary of State welcome local initiatives to better promote iconic Scottish regions and locations, such as Speyside? What encouragement would he give to public and private sector partners in making the most of Scotland’s world-class potential as a tourism draw?

David Mundell: I am aware of the initiatives to promote Speyside, having recently visited the right hon. Gentleman’s picturesque constituency, and I wish them well. Such opportunities reach their full potential only with significant public and private sector partners playing a full part, and I look forward to hearing about progress from Speyside and other regions of Scotland that are making the most of that potential.

North Sea Oil and Gas

Stuart Andrew: What discussions he has had with representatives of the North Sea oil and gas industry on UK Government support for that sector.

David Gauke: Government Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors, including the oil and gas industry. Last week, the Chancellor announced a further package of reforms to support jobs and investment in the oil and gas sector. That will help the industry respond to the challenging commercial conditions caused by the steep fall in oil prices.

Stuart Andrew: The excellent Budget package for the oil and gas industry has certainly been welcomed by that industry. Is that another example showing that when Scotland’s two Governments work together they can get the best outcome for Scotland in the United Kingdom—something that an independent Scotland could never have achieved?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The United Kingdom is able to absorb the shocks of the volatile oil price, and take steps to ensure that our oil and gas sector is as strong as it can be, given the low oil prices.

Kirsty Blackman: Will the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues commit to taking action to ensure that companies in the oil and gas sector have appropriate access to finance at this time?

David Gauke: The Government do all they can to support businesses the length and breadth of the United Kingdom in all sectors. My point is that we are able to take action and support the oil and gas sector because we are the
	United Kingdom. Had Scotland become independent, it would be facing a very substantial loss of revenue and have great difficulties absorbing that.

Government’s Welfare Programme

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the effects of the Government’s welfare programme on social and economic inequalities in Scotland.

Priti Patel: I meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and counterpart Ministers in the Scottish Government on a regular basis to discuss devolution of welfare programmes to the Scottish Government.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: Last week’s Budget saw one of the most iniquitous measures proposed by this Government, which was to cut the personal independence payment for 40,000 disabled people in Scotland. When did the Secretary of State for Scotland, and Ministers, first realise that that was the wrong thing to do? Was it around the Cabinet table, during the Budget statement or on Sunday when the Prime Minister was forced to backtrack?

Priti Patel: The Government’s position on PIP and disability reforms is clear, and was announced by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor.

Stewart McDonald: Will the Secretary of State tell the House and the people of Scotland when he realised that those cuts were wrong, or was he planning a resignation over the weekend?

Priti Patel: As I have said, the Government’s position has been made abundantly clear. If the hon. Gentleman missed the statement by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Monday, I will be more than happy to share it with him again.

Ian Murray: I start by echoing the comments of the Secretary of State and the leader of the Scottish National party, and pass on my heartfelt condolences to all those involved in the events in Brussels. We will defeat terrorism, but, as the Secretary of State said, it will take solidarity and resolve.
	Last night, the House passed a Budget that was unprecedented. It contained a £4.4 billion black hole after the Chancellor was forced to reverse his decision to cut personal independence payments. The Government’s long-term economic plan is turning into a long-term economic scam. These savage cuts, following the £1,500 a year reduction in the employment and support allowance work-related activity group, affect over 60,000 Scots. Those cuts would have gone through had it not been for the resignation of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). Will the Minister guarantee that, when the Chancellor returns with revised public spending, no cuts will fall on the disabled and the most vulnerable?

Priti Patel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I welcome his comments with regard to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green
	(Mr Duncan Smith). The Government have been very clear that we are not proceeding with the changes and we will not be seeking an alternative offset in savings.

Ian Murray: It is clear from that answer, and from the previous answer, that the Government now have absolutely no idea what to do. They are creating untold anxiety for the people in Scotland who are affected. Let me remind the House what the former Secretary of State said: that the cuts in the Budget risked dividing society, put pounds ahead of people and were distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest. Does the Minister agree with her former Cabinet colleague, and many on her own side, that the cuts to disabled people in Scotland are not defensible? Does she want to take this opportunity to apologise, on behalf of the Scottish Conservative party, to the tens of thousands of vulnerable and disabled Scots affected by this shambles?

Priti Patel: I reiterate that the Government’s position is fundamentally clear: there will be no further changes to disability payments. The hon. Gentleman will have realised that last night the Budget was passed by the House. That was right and proper. He, of all people, should recognise that the Government are delivering on the Smith commission and devolving powers to the Scottish Government. We look forward to working with the Scottish Government on welfare reform and the delivery of employment and support programmes for the benefit and the betterment of the Scottish people.

Economic Trends

Karen Lumley: What recent discussions he has had with business groups on economic trends in Scotland.

David Mundell: I regularly meet a wide range of business organisations to discuss economic issues in Scotland. As I alluded to, last week I shared a platform with the First Minister of Scotland at the annual forum of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, where we discussed the important issue of productivity.

Karen Lumley: Given that businesses in Redditch have welcomed the devolution deal for Birmingham, what representations have business groups in Scotland made to my right hon. Friend about city deals there?

David Mundell: I have been particularly delighted at the welcome from business groups in Scotland for the announcement yesterday of the Inverness and Highland city deal. The Scottish Government, UK Government and Highland Council will deliver a £315 million package. I welcome in particular the early-day motion from the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and his colleagues. I pay tribute to him for his part in bringing the deal about.

Liz McInnes: The Secretary of State will be aware that about 400,000 workers in Scotland earn less than the living wage. The Government claim to be on the side of working people, so why have his Scottish Tory colleagues voted repeatedly alongside the SNP Government to thwart Scottish Labour proposals to extend the living wage?

David Mundell: I will resist the temptation to give the hon. Lady a lecture on the Scottish Labour party’s woes and the fact that it has not been a credible opposition to the SNP in Scotland. This Government are very, very clear on our proposals to increase the wages of the poorest in society by the introduction of the national living wage.

John Stevenson: Local government clearly has a role to play in economic development. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the Scottish Parliament also devolves power to local government? Might it look to England for a lead—on elected mayors, for example?

David Mundell: I very much take my hon. Friend’s comments. When I spoke with the First Minister of Scotland at the Scottish Council for Development and Industry forum last week, I was particularly encouraged by what she said about her support for city deals. I hope that the city deals we see emerging in Scotland will not just include financial packages but go on to include greater devolution within Scotland.

Lisa Cameron: People in my constituency are extremely concerned about the perceived impact on the local economy and local jobs of the proposed closure of HMRC sites. What impact assessment is being made of these closures on the local economy and jobs?

David Mundell: Initial proposals have been set out for the future shape of HMRC. We hear repeatedly in the House about the wish to make HMRC more efficient and effective, but no steps will be taken in the hon. Lady’s constituency or elsewhere without full consultation with all those involved.

EU Membership

Stephen Gethins: What recent discussions he has had with Ministers of the Scottish Government on UK membership of the EU.

David Mundell: As the First Minister and I both confirmed last week when we shared a platform in St Andrews, in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, the official position of both the UK and Scottish Governments is that the UK is better off in a reformed EU.

Stephen Gethins: First, may I associate myself with the remarks about Brussels, having spent many happy years in that wonderful city? Secondly, the Secretary of State will be aware of the benefits that EU membership has brought us, such as paternal rights and holiday entitlement. Does he agree that we should focus on those benefits, not a rerun of “Project Fear”?

David Mundell: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman saw the details of my speech yesterday, in which I made a positive case setting out the benefits to Scotland of our remaining in the EU, but I look forward to sharing platforms over the coming weeks with him and his colleagues to make that case.

Philip Davies: Given that we have a £62 billion a year trade deficit with the EU, does the Secretary of State think that, were we to leave the EU, the Prime Minister would have the ability to negotiate a free trade deal with the EU?

David Mundell: My position is clear: I believe that Scotland and the UK are better off in the EU under the reformed arrangement that the Prime Minister has already negotiated.

Douglas Chapman: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that a recent survey confirmed that the Scottish Government were one of the most trusted Governments in Europe? Does he look forward to the re-election of Nicola Sturgeon and her team so that we can continue being the most trusted Government in Europe, including beyond 23 June?

David Mundell: I want to ensure that Nicola Sturgeon and her team are held properly to account in the Scottish Parliament, which is why I am encouraging people to vote for Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives.

CCS Funding (Peterhead)

Clive Lewis: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Ministers of the Scottish Government on withdrawal of funding for the carbon capture and storage scheme at Peterhead.

David Mundell: I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and Ministers of the Scottish Government on a number of important energy issues affecting Scotland. The most recent was last night.

Clive Lewis: The Government’s own advisers on energy and climate change have warned that the cost of meeting our climate change targets could double without Peterhead and CCS. Given that the Government are having a good run on U-turns when it comes to saving the Chancellor, perhaps they would also like to make a U-turn when it comes to saving the planet—something that people feel is far more worth while.

David Mundell: We are looking carefully at all options in developing our approach to CCS, informed by Lord Oxburgh’s CCS advisory group. In parallel, the Government continue to engage with the CCS industry—including Shell, which is leading the proposed Peterhead project.

Margaret Ferrier: At the time of the announcement of £1 billion of funding for the CCS scheme at Peterhead, the Energy Secretary was forced to deny that it was a bribe prior to the independence referendum. Now that the withdrawal of this supposedly ring-fenced capital investment exposes it as just that, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise today to the people of Scotland?

David Mundell: If anybody should apologise to the people of Scotland, it is the hon. Lady and her friends for suggesting that oil tomorrow would have a price of
	$103 a barrel. What is clear in relation to CCS is that the costs are high and must come down. We have not ruled CCS out, and we are committed to working with the industry to bring forward innovative ideas for reducing the cost of this potentially important industry.

Wayne David: I am reluctant to refer to the Budget because we cannot be absolutely sure what is in and what is out. For example, the Chancellor’s support for the oil and gas industry is welcome, but it does not take us very far forward. Unfortunately, it appears that the Government here in London are taking their cue from the Government in Holyrood. There the SNP Government recently axed £10 million of tax breaks for renewable firms, yet they like to see themselves as a green Administration. Are we not seeing two Governments who are confused, pursuing contradictory policies, and not knowing whether they coming or going?

David Mundell: I can point out one distinct difference between this Government and any Labour Scottish Government, or indeed SNP Scottish Government—and that is that we are not putting up the tax for ordinary people as both those parties propose. We have made it very clear that the door is not closed on CCS, but the costs must come down.

Scotland Bill (Fiscal Powers)

Nigel Huddleston: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on commencement of the fiscal powers in the Scotland Bill.

David Gauke: The UK and Scottish Governments have met 10 times under the Joint Exchequer Committee since the election last year. These discussions resulted last month in the agreement of a new fiscal framework for the Scottish Government. Agreement on the fiscal framework enables us to deliver on the vow we made to the Scottish people and delivers one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world, with the economic and national security that comes from being part of the UK.

Nigel Huddleston: Does the Minister agree that it would be bad news for Scotland if it became the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom? Does he agree with Ruth Davidson MSP that Scottish taxpayers should not have to pay any more in tax than fellow Britons in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

David Gauke: The Scottish people have essentially three choices in their elections. Two of them—voting Labour or SNP—would involve paying more in income tax.

Gavin Newlands: Does the Minister agree with me about the Chancellor’s reckless, last-minute intervention to tweak the fiscal framework after it had been agreed by the Treasury and the Scottish Government? Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor’s brinkmanship intentions endangered the framework at the very last moment?

David Gauke: The answer is no. An agreement has been reached. We are pleased that we have that agreement, and now it is for the Scottish Government to be held accountable by the Scottish people.

Budget Measures: Scotland

Deidre Brock: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect on Scotland of measures announced in the Budget.

David Gauke: The Chancellor has delivered a budget that delivers for Scotland. This will be the last Budget where a UK Chancellor sets out income tax rates and thresholds for Scottish earners. The changes to the income tax personal allowance will benefit 2.6 million taxpayers in Scotland. The Budget delivers on our plans to build a stronger Scottish economy as part of the UK and put the next generation first.

Deidre Brock: I congratulate the Minister on finding the Chancellor to have those discussions—earlier this week, we thought he had gone walkabout! The Budget had £1 billion-worth of cuts to the Scottish budget and £650 million-worth of cuts to the English NHS. Given the volte-face on social security cuts, does he think he could persuade the Chancellor to reverse Scotland’s cuts and put in a good word for the English NHS as well?

David Gauke: Let me remind the House that there were three asks from the SNP: a freeze in whisky fuel duty, a freeze in fuel duty, and help for the oil and gas industry. That is exactly what the Chancellor delivered.

Alan Brown: Did the Secretary of State discuss with the Chancellor the merits of an £8.5 billion corporation tax cut and a £6 billion giveaway in capital gains and inheritance tax versus those of a proposed £4 billion cut in payments to the disabled, and how that would affect people in Scotland, or did he sit there and do what he was telt yet again?

David Gauke: I remind the hon. Gentleman that 73,000 businesses in Scotland will benefit from the cut in corporation tax. Is he saying that he opposes that?

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Peter Bottomley: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 March.

David Cameron: Adrian Ismay, a Belfast prison officer, died last week as a result of injuries caused by a bomb placed under his vehicle. A murder investigation is under way, and one man has been charged in connection with the attack, but we should today offer our condolences to the family and friends of Mr Ismay.
	Let me also update the House on yesterday’s terrorist attacks in Brussels. Details are still emerging, but our understanding is that at least 34 people were killed and many others injured. Daesh claimed responsibility for the attacks, which follow the horrific suicide bombing that they carried out in Istanbul on 19 March. We are aware of four British nationals who were injured in the attack, and we are concerned about one missing British national.
	We face a common terrorist threat, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing our full solidarity with the people of Belgium following these terrible attacks. I spoke to the Belgian Prime Minister, Charles Michel, yesterday to pass on our condolences. Our police and agencies are doing everything that they can to support the investigation. In this country, we have increased police patrols and border screening. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement later setting out all the steps that we are taking.
	Britain and Belgium share the same values of liberty and democracy. The terrorists want to destroy everything that our two great countries stand for, but we will never let them.
	Mr Speaker, this morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Peter Bottomley: Bombers, everywhere and every time, aim for publicity, public reaction, and disunity. Can we disappoint them by uniting for hope, not hate?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that. These people packed their explosives with nails in order to kill as many innocent people, including women and children, as they possibly could. We should unite in condemnation of them, and we should stand with the people and the Government of Belgium and with all countries that are being afflicted by this appalling terrorist menace, and say that they shall never win.

Jeremy Corbyn: I support the words that have just been said by the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the Prime Minister, in solidarity with the people of Belgium and the victims of the horrific attacks that have taken place in Brussels, and also in Ankara, in the last few days. We pay respect and tribute to all their families and friends, and we pay enormous respect to the emergency services of all denominations for the huge amount of work that they have done to try to save life. We must defend our security and values in the face of such terrorist outrages, and refuse to be drawn into a cycle of violence and hatred. We take pride in our societies of diverse faiths, races and creeds, and will not allow those who seek to divide us to succeed.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will respond, on behalf of the Labour party, to the statement that the Home Secretary will make at 12.30 pm.
	I also join the Prime Minister in sending my deepest condolences to Mr Ismay’s wife, Sharon, and his three daughters. The people of Northern Ireland made a profound choice to follow the path of peace when they widely adopted the Good Friday agreement. The actions of an unrepresentative few should not be allowed to change a course that is supported by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland.
	Let me now raise a different subject altogether. Last week, I received a letter from Adrian. He wrote:
	“I’m disabled and I live in constant fear of my benefits being reassessed and stopped…and being forced onto the streets”.
	Will the Prime Minister do what the Chancellor failed to do yesterday, and apologise to those who went through such anguish and upset while there was a threat of cuts to their personal independence payments?

David Cameron: Let me first thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about the terrorist attacks in Belgium, and about Northern Ireland and the fact that we have achieved so much peace and progress in that valuable part of our United Kingdom.
	Turning to the issue of disability benefits, as I said in this House on Monday, when you are faced with having to take very many very difficult decisions—including many spending reductions—as we were after becoming the Government in 2010, you do not always get every decision right. I am the first to accept and admit that, and on every occasion that that happens it is very important that you learn the lessons, but as we do so, we will continue to increase spending on disability benefits, which will be more than £46 billion a year by the end of this Parliament, compared with £42 billion when I became Prime Minister.

Jeremy Corbyn: Government figures published only this morning show that the number of people with disabilities and who are homeless is now up by 39% since 2010, and that 300,000 more disabled people are living in absolute poverty. That is why people like Adrian are very worried. There has been big disarray in the Cabinet over the last few days, so can the Prime Minister now absolutely and categorically rule out any further cuts to welfare spending in the lifetime of this Parliament? Simply: yes or no?

David Cameron: Let me respond to all the points that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. First, he talked about the number of people in poverty. We have actually seen poverty fall during this Parliament. The second thing he referred to was the regrettable rise in homelessness, with figures out today, but homelessness is still 58% below the peak that it reached under Labour. That is important. He talked about the number of disabled people. This is a Government committed to supporting the disabled, but it is worth making the point that in the last two years, an extra 293,000 disabled people have got into work. We want to continue to close the disability gap, as we have set out in our manifesto.
	As for the question about further welfare reductions, let me repeat the statement that the new Welfare Secretary made on Monday and that the Chancellor made on Tuesday. I am happy to make it again. I dealt with these issues on Monday. I turned up and gave the answers even though the Leader of the Opposition had not asked the questions. We are very clear that we are not planning additional welfare savings other than the ones that we set out in our manifesto and that are in train.

Jeremy Corbyn: My question was actually about the poverty of people with disabilities, which the Prime Minister did not answer. In his failure to explain how he would fill the hole in his Budget left by the change of heart on personal independence payments, the Chancellor said:
	“We can afford to absorb such changes”.—[Official Report, 22 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 1394.]
	If it is so easy to absorb changes of this nature, why did the Chancellor and the Prime Minister ever announce them in the first place? Will the Prime Minister now listen and learn, and withdraw the £30 per week cut to disabled employment and support allowance claimants that his Government are pursuing?

David Cameron: The changes to employment and support allowance have been through both Houses of Parliament. It is important to note that employment and support allowance for the most disabled—that is, those in the support group—is up by almost £650 a year under this Government. We have increased the higher rate of attendance allowance, we have increased carers allowance, and we have increased the enhanced rate of PIP because we believe that a strong economy should support the most disabled people in our country, and that is exactly what we have legislated to do.
	If the right hon. Gentleman wants to get on to discussing black holes, I say bring on the argument. We inherited an 11% budget deficit from the Labour party, and under this team of Ministers and this Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have cut that deficit by two thirds since we became the Government. From Labour, all we have had is more proposals for more spending, more welfare, more taxes and more debt—all the things that got us into the biggest mess with the biggest black hole in the first place.

Jeremy Corbyn: If it is all so fine and dandy, the question has to be asked: why did the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) feel it necessary to resign as Work and Pensions Secretary, complaining that the cuts being announced were to fit arbitrary fiscal targets? He said that they were
	“distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest”.
	In the initial announcement, he proposed cuts to PIPs then changed his mind. Is not the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green right when he says that this was a political decision rather than one made in the interests of people in this country?

David Cameron: I believe that after seven or eight years of economic growth it is right to be targeting a surplus, because a responsible Government put aside money for a rainy day. I do not want to be part of a Government that do not have the courage to pay off our debts and leave them instead to our children and grandchildren. That is the truth. What is dressed up as compassion from the party opposite just means putting off difficult decisions and asking our children to pay the debts that we were not prepared to pay ourselves. [Interruption.] I do not know why the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), is shouting at me. We have a very interesting document today: the spreadsheet showing which Labour MPs are on which side. The hon. Lady is shouting, but it says here—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	No, no, it says she is “neutral but not hostile”. On the other hand, the Opposition Chief Whip is being a bit quiet. There are five categories. We have “core” support—
	[
	Interruption.
	]
	I’ve got all day, Mr Speaker. We have “core” support—I think you can include me in that lot very strongly. We have “core plus”. The Opposition Chief Whip is being a bit quiet because she is in “hostile”. And I thought I had problems!

Jeremy Corbyn: Let me invite the Prime Minister to leave the theatre and return to reality. The reality is that he has presided over a Budget that unravelled in two days and now contains a £4.4 billion black hole. He may wish to consult the Chancellor on yet another change of heart on this matter. Will he now consult the Chancellor and tell the country who is going to pay for the black hole? Will it be through cuts or tax rises? Where will the cuts fall? Where will the tax rises take place, as £4.4 billion has to be found from somewhere?

David Cameron: Suddenly the king of fiscal rectitude speaks. The right hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the Budget passed last night. It is a Budget that cuts the deficit in every year of this Parliament. It is a Budget that delivers a surplus by the end of this Parliament. None of that is going to change. He talks about this Budget—[Interruption.] The “hostile” shout, but the “neutral but not hostile” have to be quiet, I think. I want to know: hands up, who is “core plus”?
	I will tell you what this Budget did. It took a million people out of income tax. It saw more money for our schools. It helped the poorest people in our country to save. It cut taxes for small businesses. It cut taxes for the self-employed. It made our economy stronger. It made our country fairer. It is a Budget that will help this country do better.

Jeremy Corbyn: The truth is that it was a Budget that fell apart in two days. The truth is that many people with disabilities went through the most unbelievable levels of stress and trauma after the PIP announcement was made. There are many people who are still going through stress and trauma in our society. There are still—[Interruption.] I am not sure that the Government Members who are shouting so loudly have any idea what it is like to try to balance a budget at home when you do not have enough money coming in, the rent is going up and the children need clothes.

Mr Speaker: Order. There is too much shouting on both sides of the House. Stop it. The public are bored stiff by it. The right hon. Gentleman will finish his question and we will have an answer. There will be no shouting from Members of any grouping. That is the message.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Budget has to mean something for everybody in our society, however poor and however precarious their lives are. This Budget downgraded growth, downgraded wage growth and downgraded investment. The Chancellor has failed on debt targets and failed on deficit targets, as the official figures have shown. The fiscal rule is quite simply failing. The Treasury Committee scrutinised the Government’s fiscal rule and could not find any credible economist who backed it. Can the Prime Minister find anybody who backs a policy and a Budget with a big hole in it which downgrades every single forecast the Government set themselves before the Budget was made?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman is just a bit late, because the Budget passed through this House with large majorities on every single vote. Let me remind him: this Government are spending more on the disabled than in any year under the last Labour Government. We are spending more on the most disabled, including the most disabled children in our country. We have got more disabled people into work than ever happened under Labour. What we see with this Budget is the background of an economy that is growing, where employment is at a record high, investment is rising and businesses are creating jobs in Britain, which is the envy of other European economies. It is because we have a strong economy that we are able to provide this support. That is what we see: Britain getting stronger and the Labour party a threat to the economic security of every family in our country.

Mike Freer: I am sure the Prime Minister is as appalled as I am that incidents involving anti-Semitism are on the rise. Does he agree that all organisations, public and private, should root out anti-Semitism, without hesitation?

David Cameron: I completely agree with my hon. Friend; anti-Semitism is an absolute cancer in our societies and we should know that when it grows it is the signal of many even worse things happening to ethnic groups and different groups all over our country. There is, sadly, a growth of anti-Semitism in our country and we see it in terms of attacks on Jewish people and Jewish students—it absolutely has to be stamped out. We should all, whatever organisation we are responsible for, make sure that happens. I have to say that we do see a growth in support for segregation and indeed for anti-Semitism in part of the Labour party, and I say to its leader that it is his party and he should sort it out. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. This sort of gesticulation across the Chamber is way below the level and the dignity of senior Members on the Front Bench on either side. It is terribly tedious—cut it out.

Angus Robertson: When terrorists attack Brussels or Paris or London or Glasgow, we are as one in our condemnation of the atrocities, as we equally condemn the killings of Yazidis, of Kurds, of Syrians and of Iraqis by Daesh and others extremists. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to those who work here and abroad to protect us in the face of the ongoing terrorist threat, so will the Prime Minister confirm that absolutely everything is being done to help the Belgian authorities and the people of Belgium in the wake of the Brussels attacks?

David Cameron: I can certainly confirm that. In my conversations with the Belgian Prime Minister I made a number of offers of policing and intelligence assistance that we could give, particularly on high-end, expert and technical capabilities. There are already some intelligence officers embedded with the Belgian authorities and there is strong police-to-police co-operation. Clearly, the Belgians are coping with an unprecedented situation in their country. We stand ready to do anything more we can and we are also, clearly, examining all the capabilities and things that we have here to see what more we can do to safeguard our own country.

Angus Robertson: A defining characteristic of a democratic society is our trust in our institutions and democratic oversight by parliamentarians of those who work so hard to keep us safe. We have that oversight with our police and with our security services, but we do not yet have it with UK special forces under the Intelligence and Security Committee or the Defence Committee. Will the Prime Minister address that?

David Cameron: I am afraid that I just part company with the right hon. Gentleman on that one. We have put in place some of the most extensive oversight arrangements for our intelligence and security services. Our services do a remarkable job, and the police are regularly called to account both locally and nationally. The work that our special forces do is vital for our country. Like everyone else in this country, they are subject to international law, but I do not propose to change the arrangements under which these incredibly brave men work.

David Davies: In England, this Government have delivered better GCSEs, better A-levels and a better chance of getting into university than Labour has in Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members have no right to criticise our education policies when their own Education Minister in Wales has had to issue a public apology for the failure of his own?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. What we have seen in England—and we should praise the teachers who have worked so hard to deliver those results—is a result of rigour in standards, independence in our schools and accountability for results. When we look at Wales, we do not see those things in place, so I urge the Welsh Assembly Government to look at that, and I urge the Welsh people, when they have a choice at the coming elections, to ensure that they vote for parties that put education reform, education standards, education rigour and education accountability first.

Alistair Carmichael: In 1992, the oil tanker Braer ran aground off the south coast of Shetland. It was carrying 85,000 tonnes of Gullfaks crude, which then spilled into the sea and on to our shoreline. It caused economic and environmental devastation. Since the Donaldson report into that disaster, we have had an emergency tug stationed in the Northern Isles. It is our protection against ever being blighted in that way again. The Maritime Coastguard Agency now wants to take that tug away. There will be no finance for it after September. Will the Prime Minister look again at that decision, and repeat the undertaking that he made to the people of Shetland in 2014 that he will not leave them exposed in that way again?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. My understanding is that the one tug that has been sustained off the coast of Scotland has played an important role in the past. The cost is between £2 million to £3 million a year. It is currently used very sparingly, so it is right to look at the right way to deliver the service in the future. Alternative options would clearly take time to develop and implement, which is why we have announced that this will be funded until 30 September 2016, and we will have to make a decision on provision in due course. I will keep him in touch with those developments.

Amanda Milling: We believe in doing the right thing—[Interruption.]—which is why it is absolutely right that the proceeds of crime are returned to the local communities that have been the victims of crime. Staffordshire’s police and crime commissioner, Matthew Ellis, is calling on community groups in Cannock Chase to apply for grants from his commissioner’s proceeds of crime fund. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that our excellent Conservative police and crime commissioner is delivering real value for the people of Staffordshire?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Police and crime commissioners have really bedded in properly as a means of bringing our police to account. The Home Affairs Committee, an all-party Committee, reported recently that those PCCs provide greater clarity of leadership for policing and are increasingly recognised by the public as accountable for the strategic direction of their police force. That is an important reform, and when PCCs bring forward ideas such as using the proceeds of crime in the way that she suggests they should be rewarded at the ballot box.

Stuart Donaldson: The list of Government Ministers and advisers who have resigned after the Prime Minister expressed his full confidence in them is extensive, so may I ask him this: does he still have full confidence in the Chancellor?

David Cameron: Of course, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why. The Chancellor is the one who, as part of a team, has delivered the fastest growing economy in the G7. We have 2.4 million more people in work; inflation that is virtually zero; wages that are growing; and an economy that is getting stronger.

Peter Bone: The House of Commons Library confirms that this year our net contribution to the EU will increase by more than £2.6 billion—I think it is actually £2,627 million. Should that money be spent on supporting people in Bulgaria and Romania, or should it be spent in this country, supporting our vulnerable and disabled people?

David Cameron: I say to my hon. Friend that our net contribution accounts for just over one penny in every pound paid in taxes, so as we enter this vital debate we have to work out whether we believe that that sort of investment—one penny out of every pound—is worth the jobs and the investment, the growth and the security, and the safety and the solidarity that we get through working with our partners. I will be on the side that thinks it is, and clearly he will be on the side that thinks it is not, but we should have a polite and reasonable debate as we go through this. What I will say, which I am sure he will welcome, is that we have limited our contributions to the EU budget because we set an overall EU budget that is falling over the next six years. The reason why our contribution varies is that part of it is determined by the success of a country’s economy and—to return to the questions I have just been answering—because our economy has been growing faster than others in Europe, we will make a slightly larger contribution than we otherwise would.

Rupa Huq: Not only has my constituent Susan Sutovic suffered the death of her son, but the unexplained circumstances of his death have led to a 12-year battle with the authorities in Belgrade, where this happened in 2004. The UK coroner has now ruled that the death was murder. Will the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary meet the family and do what can be done to get a proper investigation, to resolve the questions that remain and to achieve justice for Petar?

David Cameron: I am not aware of the case the hon. Lady raises, but obviously it is important that her constituent gets proper resolution. I shall make sure she has a meeting with Foreign Office Ministers to discuss it.

Michael Tomlinson: JPMorgan Chase, Sunseeker, Cobham, Lush and many other local businesses are supporting the inaugural Mid Dorset and North Poole apprenticeships and jobs fair. If he happens to be free on 15 April, I know the Prime Minister would be warmly welcomed at Queen Elizabeth's school in Wimborne. I know that he will welcome the news that unemployment in my constituency is down by more than 60%, but will he ensure that we are not complacent and that we secure the vital infrastructure needed to get good-quality jobs in Dorset and across the south-west?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons we have managed to get our unemployment rate down to about 5% and 2.4 million more of our fellow countrymen and women into work is that businesses have recovered using apprenticeships. Events such as the one in his constituency will play a part in reaching our 3 million target for apprenticeships in this Parliament.

Patrick Grady: Academics, civil society and the Scottish Government have all condemned the Government’s anti-lobbying clause in new grant agreements. How can the Prime Minister promote transparency, democracy and freedom of speech overseas when that clause is clamping down on those principles here in the UK?

David Cameron: I would answer simply that I want taxpayers’ and charities’ money to go to good causes, rather than to lobbying Ministers and MPs and spent here. That is what they should be spending the money on. It is worth making the point that we are only one day away from what would have been separation day for Scotland. Had that happened, there would not be money for charities—there would not be money for anything.

Andrew Stephenson: Pubs are the beating heart of many communities across the UK. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the support given to our pubs in successive Budgets by joining me for a duty-frozen pint in the Crown Hotel in Colne, and tell the House what more he can do to support this vital part of our economy?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind invitation. In Budget after Budget, we have seen this Government supporting the pub industry, which is such an important part of our economy and particularly of rural communities. I can make an announcement today that, subject to the usual conditions, we will be extending pub opening hours on 10 and 11 June this year, to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s 90th birthday. I am sure that that will be welcomed across the House.

Richard Arkless: If I compare my constituency with the Prime Minister’s and the Chancellor’s, I find that I have four times the number of youths unemployed, more than double the disabled claimant count and an average weekly wage that is 20% less. Are those the reasons why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor never understood and never had the compassion to realise, as everybody else did, that the disabled cuts were so obviously wrong? I give the Prime Minister one more opportunity: will he apologise to my constituents, who have been scared witless over the past week?

David Cameron: Obviously, there remain challenges in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but the claimant count is down by 16% in the past year alone, the claimant count has fallen by 50% since 2010, and the youth claimant count that he specifically mentioned has fallen by 12% in the past year. That has been delivered because we have a strong economy, businesses want to invest in our country, we are supporting apprenticeships, and we are making sure that that growth is delivering for people. In just two weeks’ time, the national living wage will come in, giving the poorest people in our country a £900 a year pay rise, and that will be tax-free because we are lifting the tax threshold in our country.

David Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks this morning by the Foreign Minister of Russia, Sergei Lavrov—that we should put aside our differences and that terrorists should not be allowed to run the show? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would be stronger if we could work together, but to do that we will have to have a better understanding of Russia’s security needs?

David Cameron: Of course, we want to work with everyone we can to combat terrorism, but particularly when it comes to what is happening in Syria it is vitally important that the Russians stop any attacks and do not restart any attacks against moderate Sunnis and moderate Syrian opposition, which clearly have to form a part of that country. We cannot in the end defeat terrorism simply through the use of guns and missiles. We defeat terrorism through governance and good working democracies, because in that way people can see their own interests being represented by the countries in which they live.

Rushanara Ali: The former Work and Pensions Secretary described the cuts to personal independence payments for the disabled as divisive, unfair and against the national interest. The Chancellor’s U-turn suggests that he now agrees. Can the Prime Minister explain how on earth he allowed this to happen in the first place?

David Cameron: It is good to have an intervention from someone who, I think, is “neutral but not hostile”. If the hon. Lady keeps going, she could join “core group plus”, with the rest of us. She would be very welcome in “core group plus.” Let me tell her what this Government have done: they have increased spending on disability benefits, and seen 293,000 more disabled people into work in the past two years and 2.4 million more people in work. That is bringing the country together, because we have a growing economy that is delivering a fairer society.

Suella Fernandes: My right hon. Friend will have seen the recent OECD report on literacy and numeracy in England. Based on data from 2012, it ranked our teenagers bottom out of 23 developed countries for basic maths and reading—a damning indictment of 13 years of Labour’s education policy—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is entitled to ask her question, and the same goes for every other Member.

Suella Fernandes: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does that not show why a more rigorous curriculum and more autonomy for schools to succeed are vital to turn around the life chances of the next generation?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that it is worth while benchmarking our education system against other advanced countries. What we have seen in recent years is that the competition is very tough. When we look at the countries that are succeeding, whether it is the Republic of Korea or Finland, they have well-paid teachers, proper accountability systems for results and rigour in terms of discipline, and that is exactly what we are introducing in our country with the new curriculum coming in right now.

Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh: The women of this country are tired of waiting—waiting for equal pay, waiting for an end to maternity and pregnancy discrimination, and waiting for a fair deal for WASPI pensioners. It is 2016. How much longer?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady is right to raise these issues. It is good that the pay gap is now at an historic low. It has almost evaporated for under-40s but there is more to be done in the public sector and in the private sector to bring that about. On pensions, we have introduced a pensions system which will benefit many, many women in years to come, because we have a single-tier pension without a means test, uprated by prices, earnings or 2.5%. We were able to do that only because we raised the pension age, saving over the long term something like half a trillion pounds—a difficult decision but the right one, because it means that we can look our pensioners in the eye, knowing that they are getting dignity and security in old age.

Mike Wood: Two hundred and sixty thousand new apprenticeships have been created since the election, but the whole public sector needs to play its part if we are to meet the 3 million target to which the Prime Minister has referred. Will he ensure that every part of the public sector invests in training our young people so that we have the skills the country needs?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Getting 3 million apprentices trained during this Parliament is a very stretching target. We will have to see those large companies that have really put their shoulder to the wheel on this agenda continue to do so, but there are two sectors where we need to do better. One is the public sector; we need more public sector organisations to get behind apprenticeships. We also need to make it simple and attractive for small businesses to start training apprentices again. That is absolutely what the Minister for Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), is doing with the skills agenda. We all need to work very hard to deliver this by the end of the Parliament.

Douglas Carswell: If the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union in June, does the Prime Minister believe that the EU institutions will respond vindictively?

David Cameron: It is a very difficult question to answer. We should not be naive, were we to vote to leave, in believing that other countries would automatically cut us some sort of sweetheart deal. Just take one industry as an example: farming. Our farmers know now that they have duty-free, quota-free and tax-free access to a market of 500 million people. Were we to leave, could we really guarantee that French, Italian or Spanish farmers would not put pressure on their Governments to give us a less good deal? I do not think that we could. That is one of the many reasons why I think we are safer, more secure and better off in a reformed European Union.

John Stevenson: In April 2015 the Prime Minister said that there should be a new Carlisle principle to ensure that other parts of the UK do not lose out as a result of Scottish devolution. Can he confirm that that principle will apply, who will review the position, when it will report, and who it will report to?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is particularly important for constituencies, such as his, that are close to the border, to make sure that decisions that are made, quite sensibly and rightly, by the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies do not disadvantage the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the principle set out, and the Chancellor will report regularly on that as he updates the House on his fiscal plans.

Stephen Kinnock: I trust that the Prime Minister will be aware that there is a critical meeting of the board of Tata in Mumbai on Tuesday. I will be flying out to Mumbai with the general secretary of the Community union to make the case for British steel. That meeting will decide the future of the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister join me in exhorting Tata to stand with that plan and secure the future of the Port Talbot steelworks?

David Cameron: I absolutely give the hon. Gentleman my backing on that. A team of Ministers met yesterday to discuss all the things that we can do to get behind the steel industry at this vital time. It is an extremely difficult market situation, with massive global overcapacity and the huge fall in steel prices, but there are areas where we have taken action already and we will continue to look at what more we can do: state aid compensation so that we can secure the energy costs; greater flexibility over EU emissions regulations. We have done a huge amount in terms of public procurement, which I think can make a big difference to our steel industries. We are doing all those things and more, and we are making sure that Tata and others understand how valuable we believe this industry is to the UK and that the Government, within the limits we have, want to be very supportive and very helpful.

Brussels Terrorist Attacks

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the terrorist attacks in Brussels, our response and the threat we face from terrorism in the United Kingdom.
	The cold-blooded attacks in Brussels yesterday morning have shocked and sickened people around the world. Fourteen people were murdered and 106 wounded when two bombs exploded at Brussels airport. A further attack at Maelbeek metro station an hour later killed 20 people and wounded more than 100 others. As the Prime Minister has just said, four British nationals are among the injured and we are concerned about one missing British national. Their families have been informed and they are receiving regular consular assistance. We are working urgently to confirm if any other British nationals have been caught up in these attacks. The investigation into the attacks is still ongoing. These figures may change, and it will take some time for a fuller picture to emerge, but we know that Daesh has claimed responsibility.
	These were ordinary people simply going about their daily lives—families going on holiday, tourists visiting the city, workers making their way to their offices. They have been attacked in the most brutal and cowardly way, and I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to the victims, their families and those who have been affected by these events. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
	In Belgium, the authorities have increased that country’s terrorist threat level to four, the highest level available, meaning that the threat is serious and imminent. Yesterday, I spoke to my Belgian counterpart, Jan Jambon, to offer my condolences and to make it clear that the UK stands ready to provide any support that is needed. Belgium is a friend and an ally, and we work closely together on security matters. Following the attacks in Paris last November, we deployed police and intelligence service resources to Belgium to support the ensuing investigation, which last week resulted in the arrest of Salah Abdesalam.
	This is the 14th attack in Europe since the start of 2015. In January last year, gunmen killed 17 people at the office of Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket in Paris; in February, two people were shot dead at a synagogue and a cafe in Copenhagen; in August, an attack was prevented on a Thalys train en route to Paris; and in November, 130 people were killed, and many more were injured, in a series of concerted attacks in Paris. There have been further attacks in other parts of the world, including in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Kuwait, Egypt and Tunisia, where 30 British holidaymakers were murdered. More recently, a suicide bomber killed at least five people and injured more than 30 in an attack in the heart of Istanbul. And there continues to be a threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. The murder of prison officer Adrian Ismay, who died on 15 March, is a stark reminder of the many forms of terrorism we face.
	In the UK, the threat from international terrorism, which is determined by the independent joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at severe, meaning that an attack is highly likely. In the last 18 months, the police and the security services have disrupted seven terrorist plots to attack the UK. All were either linked to, or inspired by, Daesh and its propaganda. We know, too, that Daesh has a dedicated external operations structure in Syria which is planning mass-casualty attacks around the world.
	Following yesterday’s attacks in Belgium, the Government took precautionary steps to maintain the security of people in this country. This morning, the Prime Minister chaired a second meeting of COBRA, where we reviewed those measures and the support we are offering to our partners in Europe. Border Force has intensified checks at our border controls in Belgium and France, increased the number of officers present at ports and introduced enhanced searching of inbound tourist vehicles. Further measures include security checks on some flights and specialist search dogs at certain ports. The police also took the decision to increase their presence at specific locations, including transport hubs, to protect the public and to provide reassurance. In London, the Metropolitan police have deployed additional officers on the transport network. I can, however, tell the House that neither deployment is in response to specific intelligence.
	As I have informed the House on previous occasions, since 2010 the Government have undertaken significant work to bolster our response to the threat we face from terrorism. Last year, the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 provided new powers to deal specifically with the problem of foreign fighters and to prevent radicalisation. We extended our ability to refuse airlines the authority to carry people to the UK who pose a risk, and we introduced a new power to temporarily seize the passports of those suspected of travelling to engage in terrorism. That power has now been used on more than 20 occasions, and in some cases has led to longer-term disruptive action such as the use of the royal prerogative to permanently cancel a British passport.
	A week ago, the House debated the Second Reading of the Investigatory Powers Bill, which will ensure that the police and the security and intelligence agencies have the powers they need to keep people safe in a digital age. Through our Prevent and intervention programmes, we are working to safeguard people at risk and to challenge the twisted narratives that support terrorism. That includes working with community groups to provide support to deliver counter-narrative campaigns. Our Channel programme works with vulnerable people and provides them with support to lead them away from radicalisation, and, as we announced as part of strategic defence and security review in November last year, this year we will be updating our counter-terrorism strategy, Contest. In addition, we have protected the counter-terrorism policing budget. Over the next five years, we will invest an extra £2.5 billion in a bigger, more capable global security and intelligence network. That will include employing more than 1,900 additional staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, and strengthening our network of counter-terrorism experts in the middle east, north Africa, south Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
	Together, those measures amount to a significant strengthening of our domestic response, but, as the threat continues to adapt and morph, we must build on our joint work with our international partners. As this House is aware, the UK enjoys the longest lasting security relationship in the world, through the “Five Eyes”, with our allies the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. That relationship allows us to share information, best practice and vital intelligence to disrupt terrorist activity, prevent the movement of foreign fighters and stop messages of hate spreading.
	Following the attacks in Paris last November, our security and intelligence agencies have strengthened co-operation with their counterparts across Europe, including through the counter-terrorism group, which brings together the heads of all domestic intelligence agencies of EU member states, Norway and Switzerland. Through that forum, the UK has been working to improve co-operation and co-ordination in response to the terrorist threat and to exchange operational intelligence. We are also working bilaterally to increase aviation security in third countries. As I told the five country ministerial in February, defeating terrorism requires a global response, and we will not succeed by acting in isolation.
	The United Kingdom has intelligence and security services that are the envy of the world, and some of the most enduring international security relationships. Together with our allies around the world, we must act with greater urgency and joint resolve than we have before. We must continue, as we already do, to share intelligence with our partners, be proactive in offering our expertise to help others, and encourage them to do likewise. We must organise our own efforts more effectively to support vulnerable states, and improve their ability to respond to the threat from terrorism. And we must do more to counter the poisonous and repugnant narrative peddled by Daesh and expose it for what it is—a perversion of Islam, built on fear and lies.
	This is the third statement to the House that I have given following a terrorist attack in just over a year. Each horrendous attack brings pain and suffering to the victims and their loved ones. Each time the terrorists attack they mean to divide us. But each time they fail.
	Today, all around the world, people of all faiths and nationalities are standing in solidarity with Belgium, just as they stood together after the other appalling attacks. In the UK, people of all backgrounds and communities—Muslim, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu and Christian, and people of no faith—are united in our resolve to defeat terrorism. The terrorists sought to strike at the heart of Europe. They seek to attack our values and they want to destroy our way of life, but they will not succeed. These attacks occurred away from the shores of the UK, but we should not forget that our own threat level remains at severe, which means that an attack is highly likely. We will remain vigilant. The police and security services will continue in their dedication to keeping people safe, and the public should remain alert. Together, we will defeat the terrorists. This is the challenge of our generation, and it is a challenge we will win. I commend the statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: The Opposition support everything that the Home Secretary has said, and we assure her of our continued full support in confronting this threat. Today, our thoughts are with the families of those killed or injured, with the family of the British person who is missing and with the people of Brussels.
	We think of all the people who have suffered in all the attacks that the Home Secretary mentioned, including those last week in Istanbul and Ankara. This was more than an attack on Belgium. It was an attack on the heart of Europe and on all of Europe—a statement of intent from the terrorists, which must be met with a raised and renewed determination to defeat them.
	First, let me start with the immediate advice to UK citizens. We welcome the support that is being provided to those caught up in the chaos, but as we approach Easter, many families may have travel plans that include travelling to, or through, Belgium. Will the Government consider issuing more detailed travel guidance to them so that they can make informed decisions based on the best available information?
	Secondly, on international collaboration, can the Home Secretary say more about the nature of the immediate support that has been provided to Belgium? People will have seen reports suggesting that the suspects were linked to the attacks in Paris and known to Belgian police. That raises the question of whether the Belgian authorities have sufficient capability to deal with the extent of the problem. Is there more that can be done to support them on a longer-term basis? More broadly, given the global nature of the threat, the Home Secretary was entirely right to talk about our collaboration with all European partners.
	Thirdly, on border security, we are learning more about the extent of terror networks in Belgium. As we do, it raises questions about travel between the UK and Belgium. Britain has extensive air, sea and rail borders with Belgium. We welcome the immediate steps taken yesterday to strengthen the presence at our borders, but is there now a case for a longer-term review?
	Border Force operates juxtaposed controls at six locations in France. However, in respect of Belgium, juxtaposed controls apply only on Eurostar and not at ferry terminals. Will the Home Secretary immediately initiate a review of our borders with Belgium, with a view to strengthening them? She knows of the concerns that I have raised before about UK terror suspects on police bail who have fled the country through sea ports, and we propose to table an amendment to the Policing and Crime Bill to close that loophole. Will she today give a commitment to work with us on that?
	More broadly on borders, I have serious concerns about further cuts that are coming following the spending review. Border Force has faced years of cuts and is already stretched to the limit. The new financial year starts in a week’s time, but I notice that the Home Office is still to publish a 2016-17 budget for Border Force. Will the Home Secretary correct that today, so that there can be a debate about whether that budget is enough? Surely now is the time to strengthen our borders, not to cut them.
	Fourthly, on UK preparedness, we know that seven terror plots have been foiled here in the last 12 months, and we thank all those in the police and security services who are working to keep us safe, but we must keep our own arrangements under review. The public will want reassurance about our ability to cope with a Paris or Brussels-style attack—multiple, simultaneous incidents designed to cause maximum fear and confusion. We know that plans are in hand to improve firearms capability in London, and we welcome those, but there is concern about the ability of cities outside London to cope.
	A Home Office report on firearms capability published in July 2015 found that the number of armed officers had fallen by 15% since 2008, including a fall of 27% in Greater Manchester and 25% in Merseyside.
	There was a report in The Observer late last year that Scotland Yard had briefed the Home Secretary on its fears about the lack of capacity in regional forces to respond to terror attacks. Is that true, and can she say more about it? Has she reviewed the ability of all major cities to respond, and can she provide assurance today that if there were to be a Paris or Brussels-style attack outside London, our police and fire services would have the necessary capability to respond?
	In conclusion, while we think of the Belgian people today, we remember, too, that many victims of attacks around the world are Muslims, which suggests that this terror is not about Islam. We also know that, at moments such as this, great anxiety will be felt in the British Muslim community, with fears of reprisal attacks, rising Islamophobia and hate crime. Does the Home Secretary recognise those concerns, and will she today send an unequivocal message to anyone who seeks to promote division or hate on the back of these attacks that they will be dealt with severely? Will she condemn the ill-informed comments made on UK television today by Donald Trump and take this opportunity to distance the UK Government from them? They play into the hands of the terrorists. They are intended to drive a wedge between the Muslim community and the rest of society, who are united in revulsion at what happened yesterday.
	Daesh called the innocent people who died and were injured “crusaders”. They were nothing of the sort. They were ordinary, innocent people of all faiths and none, living side by side in one of Europe’s great cities. This is a moment not for division, but for maximum unity among peoples of all faiths and none—a moment to reject those who preach Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and all forms of extremism. Let the unanimous message go out from this House today that we stand together across it as a united country; that we stand with our neighbour Belgium in its hour of need; and that, whatever it takes, and however long it takes, we will face and defeat this threat to our way of life together.

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and the tone that he adopted. He is absolutely right. Everybody in this House condemns the terrorist attacks, and we will stand against anybody who seeks to divide our communities.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. On travel guidance, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has updated its website, and it will continue to do so. It will monitor the situation and update the travel advice on the website as necessary. I say to those who are travelling this weekend that because we have extra checks in place, particularly at the channel ports, people may experience delays that they otherwise would not have done. People should try to make sure that they have ample time when they are travelling this weekend.
	In relation to immediate support for Belgium, as I said, following the Paris attack last November, we had already given support to the Belgian Government in both policing and the intelligence services. We are building on that, and we have made some specific offers—both the Prime Minister to Prime Minister Michel, and myself to Interior Minister Jambon—of areas where we believe we have expertise that could be of benefit to the Belgians. We look forward to working with them on that.
	On the issue of the borders with Belgium, the Immigration Minister has already had some discussions, prior to the attack, with Belgian Ministers about how Border Force operates at certain ports and how we can enhance and increase our ability to act in those areas. Border Force is a more flexible organisation now. It is able to draw on resource more easily from around the country when it needs to surge capacity in certain ports, and that is exactly what it has been doing.
	On the question of firearms capability, the uplift that we announced in firearms capability is not just about London. It is about looking at the firearms capability of police forces across England and Wales. The programme that is being put in place by the police covers not just London but other areas and other cities. It looks, crucially, at where there is felt to be most need to uplift firearms capability. We are looking at uplifting the armed response vehicles and the trained counter-terrorism specialist firearms officers.
	In relation to working with other emergency services, one of the measures that we have introduced—we started this work a couple of years ago; it has been brought to fruition but it continues—is the joint emergency services programme, which brings ambulance, fire and police together at incidents to enable them to work with better communication and in a more co-ordinated fashion.
	The right hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to raise the issue of those in the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. The Transport and Home Office Minister, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad, has spoken to a number of imams and other faith leaders today about these issues. There are many people in the Muslim community in the United Kingdom who are, once again, standing up and condemning the atrocities that have taken place in Brussels.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to the comments that Donald Trump has made today. I understand that he said Muslims were not coming forward in the United Kingdom to report matters of concern. This is absolutely not the case: he is just plain wrong. As I understand it, that has been confirmed this morning by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu of the Metropolitan police. People in Muslim communities around the United Kingdom are as concerned as everybody else in the UK about both the attacks that have taken place and about the perversion of Islam underlying the ideology that has led to violence. We are working with them and we will continue to work with them to ensure that everything we do is about uniting our communities, not dividing them.

Dominic Grieve: I share entirely the Home Secretary’s sentiments in commenting on this appalling attack. In explaining the level of security co-operation that we can achieve with Belgium, and indeed with other European countries, my right hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the co-operation that can be achieved through European Union mechanisms. Does she agree with me it is somewhat strange that there have recently been suggestions that those mechanisms in some way endanger our security? Does she agree that, in fact, they greatly enhance it and provide a means by which such co-operation can be improved?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments, with which I agree. A number of mechanisms that we are part of within the European Union enhance our security. As I said in my statement, we need to co-operate on a global basis to defeat these terrorists. Co-operation with other countries, such as within the “Five Eyes” community, is important as well, but we can use mechanisms within the European Union that are of benefit to our security.

Joanna Cherry: I welcome the tone of the Home Secretary’s statement, and I thank her for advance notice of it. I wish to associate myself and the Scottish National party with the comments of the Home Secretary and others in condemning outright these appalling and devastating attacks in Brussels. Our thoughts are with everyone affected in Brussels and across the globe. Like many other hon. Members of the House, I have spent time in the beautiful city of Brussels over the years, and I have friends and colleagues there. My heart goes out to its many diverse citizens. In addition, we must not forget those affected by the outrages in Turkey. I add the condolences of SNP Members to those of the rest of the House to all those across Europe who have lost loved ones in these terrible atrocities. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected, most particularly the family of the missing British national in Brussels. We sincerely hope that his partner and her sister will be successful in their efforts to locate him.
	I wish to associate myself with the comments of the shadow Home Secretary and others about the gratitude we across the House feel to all those, whether the police or the intelligence services, who strive to keep us safe in the United Kingdom. I wish to reiterate the comments of Scotland’s First Minister that these terrorists must not succeed and that we must “unite as a community” to defeat such threats across the United Kingdom and across Europe.
	The Scottish National party is committed to protecting the people of Scotland and to keeping our communities safe. While we are aware of the challenges we face from increasingly sophisticated criminals and terrorists, the Government in Scotland have committed to work with the UK Government to defeat these threats against the freedoms we value so dearly. I note that although the UK threat level has not been changed, and we are reassured that there is no specific threat in Scotland, the Scottish Government have taken swift action to place police patrols at airports and rail stations to increase reassurance.
	The frightening statement from Daesh promising further attacks and saying that
	“what is coming is worse and more bitter”
	is the point at which I turn to the Home Secretary for reassurance. People right across the UK will be sitting at home worried for their families and their communities. What reassurances can the Home Secretary give the House about how safe we are in the United Kingdom? What action is her Department taking to ensure that we are protected from and capable of dealing with a future attempted attack? I note that the Home Secretary referred during her statement to the fact that all seven plots that have been disrupted in the UK were either linked to, or inspired by, Daesh propaganda. Does she accept the importance of undermining Daesh’s propaganda capabilities, particularly online, and what is she doing to address that?
	Finally, as I have said many times in the House—I think others have acknowledged this—what is of the utmost importance when faced with such serious criminal and terrorist attacks is to ensure that our response is proportionate, targeted and effective. The terrorists aim to instil fear, to divide us and to destroy our freedoms and civil liberties, but we must not give into that narrative. We must ensure that, whatever additional measures are taken to keep our communities safe, they remain united. I am very reassured by what the Home Secretary said about remaining united with our Muslim brothers and sisters in Britain. I associate myself with what the shadow Home Secretary said, and I invite the Home Secretary to condemn Donald Trump’s comments on British media today. Will she assure me that she will keep the importance of our having a united community across the UK at the core of her efforts in fighting terrorism?

Theresa May: The hon. and learned Lady refers specifically to the issue of threat and to safety and security across the whole of the United Kingdom. As I have said and as she will know, the threat level from international terrorism is not set by Ministers; it is set independently by the joint terrorism analysis centre. It has maintained the threat level at severe, which means that an attack is highly likely. Against that background, as I also said in my statement, the police have increased their presence at certain key locations, notably at certain transport hubs, and we have increased the action taken by Border Force at various ports, and that is right. We will obviously keep those levels of activity under observation and monitor them according to the nature of the threat that we see.
	It is for us all to be vigilant. I think the public should be alert, not alarmed. We do everything that we can to keep the public safe and secure. Underlying that, however, is of course the need for us to ensure that in particular our intelligence services—our security and intelligence agencies—are able to access the intelligence that enables plots to be disrupted. That means having the powers that we believe are right for them to have to be able to do that role.
	The hon. and learned Lady talked about the counter-narrative. It is absolutely right that, as part of the work we do, we should deal with the poisonous ideology that is leading people to violence. That work is being done. We do such work through the counter-terrorism internet referral unit to ensure that pieces are taken down from the internet. The speed at which that happens—the number of items taken down—is now something like 1,000 pieces a week. That has increased significantly in the past year or so. We led on the establishment of an internet referral unit at Europol, which is now enabling that capability to be available not just in the United Kingdom, but across the European Union.

Damian Green: One of the most effective weapons that the police and security services have in fighting Daesh terrorism is a constant flow of information and intelligence from within the various Muslim communities in this country. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that she and the Government will continue to make every effort to ensure that, in all those communities, there remains the instinct and habit of co-operation with the police and the security services so that this vital flow of information is maintained?

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is right to refer to this as a “vital flow of information”, which it is. From time to time, we look at how to make sure that opportunities are available for people to come forward in a variety of different ways with information that they feel is important. For example, the Metropolitan police have on occasion undertaken campaigns to encourage people to come forward with information. We did that, in particular, in relation to people who might be travelling to Syria. We of course continue look at how to make sure that every opportunity is available for people in Muslim communities and others who feel they have concerns that they need to express to government in various forms to do so. As my right hon. Friend says, that intelligence is absolutely vital.

Keith Vaz: I commend the Home Secretary’s statement and the unity of all parties in support of what she has said. She was right to protect the counter-terrorism budget last November. At least two of the Paris attackers had gone to Syria to fight and then returned to Europe, and 800 hundred British citizens have now gone abroad, and 400 have returned. I accept her assurances about the borders between our countries and other EU countries, but my concern is the EU’s external border, because anecdotal evidence suggests that those people come from Turkey into Greece. Will she assure the House that the Greek Government are given all the support they need to track people when they return to Europe in the first place? Once people get inside Europe, the Schengen agreement means that they can travel anywhere they like, so that external border is critical.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the external border is important, which is why within the European Union we have been arguing with others for a strengthening of that border. He will also be aware that this issue pertains to the migration crisis in Europe and, at the European Council last week and at the previous meeting, decisions were taken about enhancing our ability to strengthen that border. We have already given significant support to Greece regarding the way that it deals with people coming across the border, and we are looking to enhance that support. We stand ready with others to ensure that the work at that border is appropriate and does what is necessary to identify people and ensure that those who should be returned to Turkey are returned. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the Schengen border free zone, and the United Kingdom has its own border at which we are able further to check people who are coming into the UK.

Edward Leigh: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge that this issue is now the existential threat of our times and our people are in danger, and that now—as in the 1,000 years of our island history—the channel is our best bulwark. Given that thanks to the Schengen agreement, dozens of jihadists can access all parts of Europe with European passports, will she institute checks on all vehicles entering the United Kingdom from continental ports, and will all the passports of people entering our airports or ports be checked against intelligence sources, whether or not they are European passports?

Theresa May: As I indicated in my statement, Border Force has increased its checks at certain ports. However, I think there is a misunderstanding in my hon. Friend’s question, because we have checks at our borders and we are able to check people’s passports when they come through. That is an important part of our structure in the UK and our security, and we will retain it.

George Howarth: Does the Home Secretary agree that groups such as Daesh no longer distinguish between the near enemy and the far enemy, and that the twisted ideology that she referred to considers European values such as religious freedom, human rights and democracy as an offence against God?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that Daesh is indiscriminate in whom it chooses to attack. Its terrorist attacks have taken place not only in Europe and Turkey and the countries I referred to, but nearer to its base in Syria and Iraq, where many Muslims have died as a result. It is indiscriminate in the people it attacks, and it is attacking our fundamental values which, as he says, include those of democracy, freedom of religion, and law and order, and which underpin our society. That is why it is so important for our society to say once again that we will not let the terrorists defeat us, and I welcome all the comments made around the Chamber that go out from this House today.

Victoria Atkins: On a recent visit to Europol, the Home Affairs Committee viewed one of the horrific videos on the internet created by Daesh, and the propaganda that it uses to recruit people to its hideous cause. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the security services and police need modern, digital powers, including bulk powers, to destroy those criminals and keep us safe?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and those powers are necessary for our police and security services. That is why we will be putting the Investigatory Powers Bill through the House, because it includes powers to ensure that those whose job it is to keep us safe have what they need to do that job.

Pat McFadden: The first duty of a Government or any political leader is to protect their citizens. The global list of atrocities that the Home Secretary cited shows that this is a worldwide jihadist ideology, the fight against which we cannot opt out of in the hope that if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. I implore her to make this battle not just one of critical public safety, but also about the values that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley
	(Mr Howarth) spoke about, such as democracy, human rights, equality between men and women, and the freedoms that we enjoy in this country and in others.

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is not something that we can walk away from, and we cannot say that if we do nothing we will be safe and secure. We must fight this ideology and these terrorists, and ensure that the values that underpin our society, which the terrorists are attacking and trying to destroy, are maintained. That is one reason why the Government have looked not just at counter-terrorism, but also at our counter-extremism strategy. We want to work with communities across the United Kingdom to promote the values that underpin what makes this country such a great place to live in—values that are shared across the United Kingdom and across all communities.

Crispin Blunt: The Home Secretary referred to the fact that Daesh has a dedicated external operational structure in Syria that is planning mass casualty attacks around the world. It is self-evident that it is much easier for Daesh to progress those attacks against us if it controls an area of territory from which to project that force. Now that there is a cessation of hostilities in Syria, does the Home Secretary agree that it is our priority to assist those Syrian forces that have ceased hostilities to recover the territory now controlled by ISIL-Daesh in Syria?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to say that the fight against this brutal terrorist group is not just about what we are able to do for our security or with our partners, but also about what happens in Iraq and Syria, and the action being taken against Daesh there. It is important that a solution is brought to the conflict in Syria, which is why the Government are considering not just protection and security in the UK and intelligence sharing, but also the action that it is necessary to take in Iraq and Syria, and the diplomatic efforts to bring about that political solution and stability.

Gregory Campbell: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends I wish to stand with the Home Secretary, and the people of Northern Ireland will wish to stand with the people of Belgium at this time, given that we endured three decades of this type of terror. The Home Secretary referred to Adrian Ismay who was murdered last week, and she will know about the necessity of cross-border co-operation on the only land border between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. What levels of increased co-operation will there be to prevent any further ingress by international terrorists who may use the Irish Republic as a base from which to launch attacks on the United Kingdom?

Theresa May: We are working closely with the Irish Government to look at areas where it is possible for us to work more closely to enhance our collective security across Ireland and the United Kingdom. We are able to use security measures relating to cross-border arrangements between the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom to help with that security, but we talk to the Irish Government about how we can enhance our co-operation to ensure we keep both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom as safe and secure as we can.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Holyhead is the second-busiest ferry port in the country and, as such, is a significant point of entry from within the common travel area. Is she entirely satisfied that security arrangements at Holyhead—in particular, checks on vehicles and foot passengers— are adequate to address the terrorist threat as she perceives it?

Theresa May: The extent to which Border Force operates checks at various ports is constantly kept under review in relation to threat and perceived risk. My right hon. Friend refers to the common travel area. That is precisely one of the issues we have been working on with the Irish Government to see how we can enhance our collective external border security to ensure that internal border security within the common travel area is improved.

Ben Bradshaw: Our unique intelligence capability helped to first identify that it was terrorists who brought down the Russian plane in Egypt, at a time when that was being denied by the Russians themselves. Will the right hon. Lady assure the House that there are no unnecessary obstacles to our sharing such vital information in a timely fashion with our European partners and allies to help them fight this scourge?

Theresa May: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not only sharing information and intelligence with our European partners but encouraging European member states and others to share intelligence so we can build that collective picture. The terrorists know no boundaries and no borders. We need to work together to ensure we can deal with them.

Andrew Murrison: In issuing travel advice to the public, which they rely on to make an informed choice, will the Home Secretary ensure that we have safety first, but that we do not allow terrorists to close down our way of life and are mindful of the impact of that advice on partner nations? I am thinking in particular of north Africa in recent times and of the impact that advice has had on Tunisia, specifically.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The attack in Tunisia saw the murder of so many British holidaymakers. Action on travel advice was then taken, working with the Tunisian Government. If people do not travel, that will of course have an impact on a country’s economy. I assure him that, in looking at travel advice and in issuing guidance on travel, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office considers a range of issues, but of course what must come first is our desire to ensure the security and safety of British citizens.

Tom Brake: I echo the Home Secretary’s condolences. Belgium and Brussels have suffered a severe blow and we stand in solidarity with them. I would also like to echo what she said about the Muslim communities here. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community and the British Muslim Council of Britain, for instance, have been very quick and forthright in condemning the attacks. After Paris, the Metropolitan police said they would be recruiting an extra 600 armed police officers. Is the Home Secretary able to give us a progress report on that, and does the programme now need to be accelerated?

Theresa May: I think there is absolute unanimity around this House in our condemnation of these terrible attacks. There are two elements to the upgrade of the Metropolitan police’s armed response. I think that the 600 figure to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is not the recruitment of new firearms officers but the training of existing officers in certain parts of the Metropolitan police. As I understand it, that training is under way. The uplift in armed response vehicles across the country, which I referred to earlier, is also under way.

Lucy Frazer: The events yesterday underlined the fact that this is an international threat that requires an international response. We are making every effort to strengthen our domestic capability in the Investigatory Powers Bill. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that, in talking to international partners, she will ensure that the Bill can be practically and swiftly enforced elsewhere?

Theresa May: I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. One key issue in the Bill is the ability to issue lawful warrants against communication and internet service providers who are located elsewhere, in particular the United States of America. We continue in the Bill to assert the territorial jurisdiction that we and previous Governments have always asserted in relation to those powers, and we are discussing with the US Government the possibility of an agreement that will ensure a very solid basis on which such exchange of information can take place.

Louise Ellman: Is the Home Secretary satisfied with security at international airports with flights to the UK?

Theresa May: We have a programme, working with the Department for Transport, to look at airports across the world and assess what security arrangements are necessary. There are occasions when we ask airports to increase their security arrangements. That is a regular programme. Obviously, when a particular incident takes place, such as the attack in Tunisia, we provide a very particular focus on the security available there, not just in tourist resorts but in airports as well.

David Rutley: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the cross-party condemnation of the terrible acts that have taken place in Belgium. Sadly, these determined terrorists have very sophisticated digital communication capability. What support is my right hon. Friend receiving from internet service providers and other related businesses to help to support the battle against these extremists?

Theresa May: Our interaction with internet service providers is of various types. Obviously, there is the question of access to intercept on the issue of a lawful warrant. As I referred to in my answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), we are looking at an agreement with the United State of America in particular on that. Internet service providers have also been involved in our work to look at how we can ensure the vile propaganda put out by Daesh and other terrorist groups can be taken down from the internet, and how companies can use their own terms and conditions to ensure that that propaganda is not there to infiltrate the minds of those who could be radicalised.

Liz Saville-Roberts: I add my party’s deepest sympathy with Brussels and all the people who suffered there yesterday. Can the Home Secretary reassure soccer fans travelling from Wales and other UK nations to this summer’s UEFA European Championship that every step will be taken to ensure their safety at football stadiums?

Theresa May: There is a very well used method of co-operation with other countries when they are hosting major events, such as European football. The police have already been discussing with their counterparts what arrangements are in place. We will of course continue to monitor those arrangements. We want people to be able to go and enjoy the football, have a good time and have confidence in their security.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has rightly identified the importance of digital and signals intelligence. She will be aware of the recent conflict, if that is the word, between Apple and the FBI over the San Bernardino terrorist attack. What steps is she taking to talk with companies such as Apple, Samsung and Blackberry to try to make them co-operate for the safety of all our people in the United Kingdom and elsewhere?

Theresa May: We have regular meetings, both at official and ministerial level, with a variety of internet and communication service providers to discuss their interaction with the Investigatory Powers Bill and the powers our law enforcement and security agency services in accessing this information. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is important. As more and more people are communicating across the internet, we need to ensure that powers in this area are available to our agencies and the police. That is exactly what we are doing in the Investigatory Powers Bill.

Derek Twigg: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. It became clear following the Paris attacks that there were deficiencies in intelligence and policing linked to what was happening in Belgium. Is she happy that we have learned the lessons of those failures and that they have been carried forward to the intelligence services in this country?

Theresa May: The intelligence services in this country obviously look at any attack that takes place elsewhere in the world and at the information available to see what lessons we need to learn. The key has been the increase in co-operation and intelligence sharing off the back of these attacks. It is important we learn lessons when things happen. Of course, because of the attacks we have sadly suffered in the past, the UK has developed, particularly post 7/7, ways of dealing with these issues, and we are working and sharing our experience with others.

Rehman Chishti: I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and all that she has said. Does she agree with the comments from the Archbishop of Canterbury in Davos that Europe needs to regain the capacity to use theological language to counter terrorism? She is absolutely right that we have to take down the poisoned propaganda online. What steps are being taken to work with faith communities to put up a counter-narrative online?

Theresa May: I was not aware of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s comments, but I think he is right. It is important that theological arguments are used to counter this narrative, which is a perverted theology and ideology, and that is exactly what is happening. The Home Office works with people in communities, and, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, there are many imams who put on the internet and elsewhere a counter-theology to ensure that this perversion of Islam does not win through.

Dan Jarvis: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She will know that the key to defeating this evil is to understand, disrupt and defeat its terror networks, and a key element of that is its funding. Can she assure the House that she is working closely with colleagues in the Treasury and across Government to target the funds that finance this murderous activity?

Theresa May: Yes, we are doing that. We are looking to see what more we can do to enhance our ability to deal with terrorists’ funding. The UN came together last year, when Finance Ministers from 70 countries met for the first time, to look at the financing of serious crime and terrorism and to see what more action could be taken globally.

Alex Chalk: Within moments of these atrocities, constituents of mine at GCHQ will have deployed resources to assist their Belgian counterparts. GCHQ is a vital and unique capability. Can the House be assured that it will continue to have the resources it needs to meet what is, regrettably, a growing workload?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people at GCHQ will have responded in support of the authorities in Belgium. Day in, day out, they work to keep us safe and are a vital part of the security and intelligence agency and law enforcement response in the UK. GCHQ is world leading and respected around the world, and long may it continue.

Rushanara Ali: Our thoughts are with the victims of the terrorist attacks and their families. The Home Secretary will be aware that the number of racist and Islamophobic incidents goes up following terrorist attacks, as far right and other extremist groups seek to exploit that space, and that takes up huge amounts of policing resources. Will she assure the House that the police will have the support they need to ensure proper security, support and reassurance in communities such as mine?

Theresa May: Yes, we have supported the police in that way, but we are doing more. We have committed to identifying and recording those hate crimes that have a religious element to give us a much better picture of what is happening. The hon. Lady is right that the number of anti-Muslim incidents often increases after a terrorist attack. The police at a local level will be doing everything to deal with them.

Oliver Dowden: We are all shocked and saddened by the attacks in Brussels, but understandably members of the Jewish community in my constituency are particularly concerned about the risks facing them. Will the Home Secretary update the House on her assessment of those risks and the steps the Government are taking to deal with them?

Theresa May: I understand my hon. Friend’s comments. The Jewish community in the UK has seen an increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents over the last couple of years. That is a great cause of concern for us, and the Government are working in several ways to ensure a proper response to those incidents and to send out the message collectively—it is important that the House sends it, as the Prime Minister has done in the last few days—that we condemn anti-Semitic incidents. The Jewish members of our community are as much a part of our British community as are the Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Christian members and those members who are of no faith. We are one community and must do everything we can to stop these terrible anti-Semitic incidents.

John Woodcock: Further to an earlier question, does the Home Secretary accept that the best people to make the point that Daesh is perverting the true faith of Islam are not herself, the Prime Minister or any non-Muslims, but any and all Muslim groups here and abroad who reject violent jihadism? Is she prepared to make the sometimes difficult calls to empower and back groups here and potentially regimes abroad who do that, even if they might not accord with all the liberal, secular and democratic values we rightly hold dear in this place?

Theresa May: The Government work with those who wish to send that message to counter the narrative of the perverted Islam that comes from the ideology that underpins this terrorism. We do that through a variety of community groups in the UK. As I indicated in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), many imams in the UK and around the world—I have met some of them—are actively working to spread a different theological message. That is important work.

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend will be aware that sadly many British citizens have joined ISIL in Syria and that many have returned. They represent a terrorist risk and might poison other people’s minds. What assurance can she give the House that they will be apprehended to ensure they do not represent a threat to our security?

Theresa May: We gave extra powers to the police and the authorities in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. Over and above that, when somebody returns, we make sure they are looked at case by case. For some people, certain interventions will be necessary and will be put in place, but that will be determined case by case.

Khalid Mahmood: Regrettably, I stand again to condemn barbaric attacks, this time in Brussels and Turkey, and to say that these people are not of my faith and should not be considered by anybody to be linked to my faith.
	I congratulate the Home Secretary on the budget for the intelligence and security services, but will she also look seriously at the issues with Border Force—in particular, people with e-passports who are validated but not checked properly to see where they have been? Will she reconsider the funding for local policing, particularly for community support officers and local police officers? They contribute hugely to tackling radicalisation and dealing with the intelligence they come across. Finally, will she look at the issues of hate crime affecting all communities and ensure that local authorities and police can deal with them?

Theresa May: On hate crime, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is an issue we have taken up with the police. By looking at how we record hate crime, we hope to build a better picture of exactly what is happening. I commend him for the resolute stand he has consistently taken. This is sadly not the first time he has stood up in the Chamber, following an attack, to say they do not take place in his name. That message is echoed throughout Muslim communities in the UK. On e-passports, obviously e-gates have security capabilities, and we look at the number of Border Force staff available to support those going through them, but, in themselves, the e-gates are part of our security resilience at the border.

Huw Merriman: I pass on my sympathy for, and solidarity with, all those in Belgium who have suffered from what happened. The Government have published their “Stay Safe” principles to help the public and guide them in the event of attacks in this country, particularly those in mass transit. Can more be done by the rail operators and airline companies to ensure that the message is prominently displayed? Although the message is bleak, we would all be the better for reading it.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has made an interesting suggestion, which I will take up with the Secretary of State for Transport. We will look at the issue.

Steve McCabe: It is believed that Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who was responsible for the Paris attacks, comes from the Molenbeek district of Brussels. I understand that he was able to visit Birmingham last October. Can the Home Secretary confirm that he did visit the UK? Does she know who accompanied him? Can she rule out that it was anyone associated with the present atrocity?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman asks me to refer to people who were involved in the current atrocity that has taken place in Brussels. This is obviously an ongoing investigation, and we are working very closely with the Belgian authorities to ascertain as much information as possible about the individuals involved.

Jason McCartney: Local media in west Yorkshire this lunchtime are reporting that the family of one of my constituents believe that he is the Daesh terrorist pictured online and responsible for a recent suicide bombing in Iraq, which is claimed to have killed and injured over a dozen people. It is clear that local families have deep concerns about the radicalisation of family members. How can we support those families and tackle terrorism together?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. It is precisely the need to ensure that people do not move down the path of radicalisation that underpins the Prevent strategy and the use of the Channel programme. Through them, at local level, we want to support those who have concerns about what might be happening within their family or community. We want to ensure that where somebody is at risk of radicalisation, action can be taken to ensure that the individual does not follow that path. I believe it is important that we have put the Prevent duty on a statutory basis, which strengthens our ability to act within communities. I ask anyone who has any concerns about a member of their family or any other individual to contact the authorities at local level so that appropriate support and help can be given.

Tom Elliott: I would like to associate my party with the Home Secretary’s comments about the terrorist attacks in Belgium and also those about the murder of Adrian Ismay, a prison officer, in Belfast. Does the Home Secretary believe that the European convention on human rights provides any protection, or any additional protection that is not required, to those living under our jurisdiction who may be intent on carrying out terrorist activity?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman may know that I have had my own interactions with the European convention on human rights, when the European Court of Human Rights has been used to try to prevent me from deporting people from the United Kingdom. In certain key cases, we were able to ensure the deportation or extradition of individuals who we believed were a danger here in the UK. The operation of the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights should indeed be looked at, which is why the Government are looking at introducing our own Human Rights Act and possibly a Bill of Rights, which will interact with the ECHR.

Henry Smith: An important section of the UK border exists in my constituency at Gatwick airport. I seek my right hon. Friend’s assurances that Border Force has been strengthened at that location, particularly given that it accepts so many flights from the vast Schengen area. We need to ensure that terrorists who might have made it into Europe cannot then make it into the British Isles.

Theresa May: Yes. Border Force has looked across airports and sea ports to see where it needs to enhance the checks that it provides. It is very conscious of the fact that the coming weekend is a particularly busy one for Gatwick at the start of a holiday period. It will take action accordingly.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and commend her for her courage and fortitude at this very difficult time. At this stage of the investigation, it would seem that those who activated the bombs in that murderous attack in Brussels airport did so before they got through security. Is there any intention to upgrade or have spot checks, for instance, outside the present security system? It is quite clear that something more needs to be done.

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, on which there has been some commentary in the media. The practical problem is that if security is instigated at an earlier stage, a crowd is simply created in a different place. That is why that suggestion will not necessarily solve the issue of removing the ability to mount an attack on a large number of people. As I have said, the police presence and the visible security presence at certain airports has been increased, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal would necessarily remove the opportunity for terrorists to attack a large number of people.

Matt Warman: The appalling events in Brussels highlight the vital work done by our security services to keep us all safe. In the recent debate on the Investigatory Powers Bill, all parties adopted a conciliatory tone. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that tone and does she share my hope that in the course of the Committee stage we can arrive at a Bill that all parties can support?

Theresa May: Yes, I hope that we can achieve that. We responded to the reports of three parliamentary Committees and revised the Bill accordingly. The Bill before Committee has had those revisions made to it. Both the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), will take the Bill through Committee.
	Given the tone adopted in the debate and in the interventions today, I think we could see a constructive process taking place in Committee so that we will shortly have a Bill on the statute book that delivers the safety and security that the people of this country need.

Clive Efford: We need urgently to increase our number of armed officers so that we can rapidly respond to the sort of incident that tragically happened in Brussels. It would be a shame if that were delayed in any way by the need of police forces to take decisions about competing demands on their resources. Can the Home Secretary give an assurance that she is confident that the police have the resources they need to rapidly increase the number of armed police officers, as they are requesting?

Theresa May: Yes, because we have made extra money available for the upgrade in armed response.

Kevin Foster: I welcome the tenor of the statement, and it is clear that reason and resolve, rather than prejudice and bigotry, should define our response. What discussions about firearms capability has my right hon. Friend had with the Ministry of Defence in respect of the availability of military support for civilian law enforcement, particularly outside the major metropolitan areas?

Theresa May: Arrangements are in place for military assistance to the civil power, which can be operated in certain circumstances. Following the attacks in Paris of January last year, we looked at enhancing the capability of the military to support the police, if a multiple attack were to take place. Those arrangements are in place so that there is greater ability for the police to call on the military at an earlier stage if necessary.

Stuart McDonald: The Secretary of State has provided some welcome reassurance about the work under way to track and disrupt the movement of terrorists. Will she tell us specifically about any work under way, both here and across Europe, to disrupt the flow of weapons and explosives? That work is also crucial to our safety.

Theresa May: Yes. We have been very clear that we need to see more being done within the European environment and across Europe on firearms. I am pleased to say that, following representations, the European Commission has produced a new draft directive on firearms. I am very clear that we should ban dangerous semi-automatic weapons. That discussion is taking place, but we are clearly pushing for greater ability across the EU to deal with the movement of firearms.

Mike Wood: I worked in Brussels for seven years, and my thoughts are naturally with friends and former colleagues in Belgium, as well as with the families of those who were murdered and maimed yesterday morning. Effective security co-operation with other European Union countries is obviously vital, but will my right hon. Friend also consider how we can effectively exchange appropriate security information with allies through membership of other international organisations, such as NATO and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that we use every available opportunity, when appropriate, to exchange security information, support and intelligence, and to work together. That is why, as I said earlier, we have the “Five Eyes” co-operation, which is very important to the United Kingdom. We work within the European Union, but other organisations are involved as well. As I said to an Opposition Member earlier, in the United Nations there has also been a greater understanding of some of the measures that need to be taken.

Points of Order

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like your advice on a Select Committee report that was published only this morning, but which, I am afraid, relates specifically to some of the business that is before the House today.
	The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has reported on an investigation into a complaint against HS2 Ltd that was upheld by the ombudsman, who fined HS2. The Committee received and published a large body of evidence that is highly critical of HS2 Ltd. Following its investigation, the Committee has declared that the
	“culture of defensive communication and misinformation within”
	HS2
	“is not acceptable. Unless those responsible for delivering HS2 understand that first and foremost they serve the public, and take action to reflect this, then they will continue to be vulnerable to the criticism that they have disregard for members of the public who are impacted by”
	HS2.
	The report was published only this morning, so it has obviously been impossible to table amendments to the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, with which we shall be dealing later today, in respect of the report and that poor communication and disregard for people affected by HS2. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, whether it would still be possible, in the House, to call for a separate debate on the report, and to look into the continuing disrespectful behaviour of HS2 Ltd and its management?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her point of order, to which my response is twofold. First, as I am sure she will be aware—this will not satisfy her, but I say it as a matter of fact—the report to which she has referred is tagged to the Third Reading debate on the Bill. That is to say, it is highly germane to that debate.
	Secondly, the right hon. Lady asked me whether she could call for, or seek by one means or another, a separate debate on the report. The answer is that most certainly she can seek such a debate, and she may well be successful in obtaining such a debate—I do not, at this point, know—but that, of course, will not assist her in terms of the business scheduled for today. The matters that are up for debate in the House today will naturally proceed, and must, in terms of good order, do so. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady, who is a wily operator, has made her point in her own way, and it is clearly on the record. That seems to bring—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mr Speaker: —a warm smile to the visage of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, from whom we shall now hear.

Michael Fabricant: And whose birthday it is.

Mr Speaker: Whose birthday, allegedly, it is. It is always useful to have a bit of information. I wish the hon. Member for The Cotswolds a happy birthday, and I look forward to hearing his point of order.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker —and thank you for your good wishes. As you will know, I very rarely make points of order in the House, but on this occasion I must seek your advice on how I might lobby the business managers about the inadequacy of the time that has been provided for the Report and Third Reading debates on the Bill today.
	Millions of people up and down the line are affected by this large and highly complex project, and by the Bill. I do not think that three hours for Report and Third Reading is sufficient to give Members of Parliament an opportunity to make representations on this complex project on behalf of their constituents, let alone members of the Select Committee, some of whom—although not I—spent 160 working days sitting in the Select Committee. Some might give the House the benefit of their wisdom by suggesting how the hybrid Select Committee procedure could be improved.

Mr Speaker: First, let me acknowledge and pay tribute to the extremely unselfish and conscientious work that the hon. Gentleman and others did on the Committee, under the distinguished and stoical chairmanship of the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms). Secondly, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that if the Government Chief Whip were here, he would have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but he is not, so he has not. That said, I feel sure that the thrust of it will be conveyed to the Chief Whip ere long.

Caroline Spelman: rose—

Mr Speaker: Of course I will come to the right hon. Lady, and will treat her with the very greatest respect.
	As Members know, and as others attending to our proceedings need to be aware, these are not matters for the Chair. Members are ventilating their very real sense of grievance and unhappiness, but these are matters for the business managers to determine. They make their own judgments. People operate—if I can put it in this way—at their own level in regard to what they judge to be the proper treatment of business and of the thoughts on these matters of Members, including minorities of Members. Those are not judgments that I can second-guess. We all have our own views, but I think that I should properly leave it there.

Caroline Spelman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that I, too, rarely make a point of order in the House.
	I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for understanding the frustration that we feel, as Members representing the affected constituencies. The fact is that, given that roughly 50 amendments have been tabled, if we were to put our amendments to the vote in the time available—one hour for the first group and two hours for the second—there would be no time for us even to discuss them.
	A great deal of work, and a great deal of excellent assistance from the Clerks, has gone into creating amendments that I believe would ameliorate the consequences of the Bill. Will you use your good offices, Mr Speaker? When you speak to the Lord Speaker, will you draw her attention to the fact that, although amendments were tabled, we had very little opportunity to debate them and press them to a vote?

Mr Speaker: That was an extremely well chosen and thoughtful point of order. I acknowledge that, as the right hon. Lady said, she very rarely raises points of order; her seriousness of purpose is, I think, respected in all parts of the House.
	I will indeed convey that sentiment to the Lord Speaker. I think that the unhappiness is well known. It is a matter of fact that, among those affected, there will be very real consternation about this. That the individuals affected are a minority of the electorate is not in doubt, but they will be very unhappy about it, and that is not something that should be blithely dismissed by the Executive branch of our political system.
	There will be those who think, “All that you do is get the business through and that is all that matters”, and who are quite hard-headed and perhaps even a bit cynical, but people ought to have regard to the views and interests of minorities. They might, on a particular issue, one day be in that position themselves; they will then want the very protection that the right hon. Members for Meriden and for Chesham and Amersham, and the hon. Member for The Cotswolds, are seeking. I will certainly relay the concern to the Lord Speaker.

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was always my understanding that if one wished to add one’s name to amendments, as long as one did it the day before the day on which the Order Paper was to be published, that was sufficient. So I was a little surprised, on reading today’s Order Paper, to see that, despite the personal visit that I made yesterday to the Private Bill Office—no one suggested to me that I was too late to add my signature to a number of the amendments—my name does not appear at all. I wondered whether that was a matter on which you could shed any light, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: We have been extremely well served, as always, by our Clerks, who do their business with great commitment and prowess, and I have just been advised on this matter. That advice is that I will cause the matter to be investigated. The truth is that, off the top of my head, I have absolutely no idea why the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s name has not been added to those amendments. One would assume that in the ordinary course of events it would be, so I am rather taken aback. His understanding of the normal practice is, as usual, quite correct. Let us have the matter looked into, but I hope that it will be trumpeted to the good people of the Beaconsfield constituency that he sought to have his name added to the amendments, and the work in progress is that he may yet succeed in that mission.

Cheryl Gillan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that I am not trying your patience, or that of the House, too much by raising a further point of order. I want your advice on this matter for the benefit not only of those in the House but of the people outside who watch these proceedings. It might be of interest to know that when the Channel Tunnel Bill went through the House in 1987, its Report stage was not guillotined and lasted from 7 pm until 1.50 am. Only after that did its Third Reading debate begin. Mr Speaker, could you confirm that, according to the timetable motion on the Order Paper, if any Member chose to press an amendment in the first or second group to a vote, that vote would eat into the time allowed for Members to debate these matters? Our constituents are not going to understand why Members do not press these amendments to the vote, but the Government have engineered this so that if we do so, we will have no time to debate the Bill. There might be Members present who wish to have their amendments voted on, but if they press their amendments to a vote, they will rob people on both sides of the House who are affected by the Bill of the opportunity to speak. As you have pointed out, Mr Speaker, this affects only a very small minority because both the main parties in the House are being whipped to vote for the Bill.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Lady’s interpretation is correct. I always think that it is important for our proceedings to be intelligible to people beyond this place, so let it be stated on the record that these exchanges have not eaten into the time available for debate at all. They have obliged the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is about to present his ten-minute rule Bill, to wait patiently before being able to speak to it, but they have not in any way detracted from or taken time out of the debate on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is correct to say that if Members seek a Division on a particular amendment, that will eat away at the remaining time available for debate. A lot of people will feel that that is a regrettable state of affairs, to put it mildly. I note what she has said about the precedent of the Channel Tunnel Bill. The Secretary of State is not in his place, although he might very well be here for Third Reading. As far as I am aware, he is a person of robust constitution and perfectly capable of staying in the Chamber for an appreciable period to debate matters of important public policy. I have never had any reason to suppose that his conscientious Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State—[Interruption.] His Minister of State, indeed. No discourtesy was intended to the hon. Gentleman. I have never had reason to suppose that the Minister of State was incapable of strenuous parliamentary endeavour over an extended period.

Robert Goodwill: rose—

Mr Speaker: Perhaps the Minister is going to add to that point now.

Robert Goodwill: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I should like to point out that last night’s Business of the House motion was not objected to. On the matter of Members having had their say on the Bill, the Select Committee sat for 160 days, which was more than 700 hours. It heard 1,600 petitions, and 21 Members of this House appeared before it a total of 36 times. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) herself attended three times, for a total of two hours and 10 minutes.

Mr Speaker: That is a matter of indisputable fact, and I thank the Minister of State for taking the opportunity to make that point. So far as last night is concerned, it is also a matter of fact that the motion was not objected to. The Business of the House motion appertaining to this matter was of course objected to on Monday evening by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. Had it been objected to last night, there would have been a requirement for a debate today on Members’ concerns, which would have eaten into the available time. The absence of an objection last night and the fact that I have just mentioned are obviously causally linked.

Cheryl Gillan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, and to the courteous contribution from the Dispatch Box by the Minister of State, I would like to confirm that I did object to the sittings motion, but in discussions with the business managers I was informed that if I objected on the second night, the matter would have come back today and eaten into our debating time. That would have course have been completely self-defeating. I think the point was made on the first day when the objection was made, and the Minister should really understand the procedure in that sense.

Mr Speaker: The right hon. Lady has put the matter fairly and squarely on the record. I am always happy to hear points of order and to do my best to respond to them, but I think it is fair to say that for now we have exhausted that terrain. We should move on to the ever-patient right hon. Member for North Norfolk.

Cannabis (Legalisation and Regulation)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Norman Lamb: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to provide for the lawful production, packaging, marketing, sale, purchase, possession and consumption of herbal cannabis in specific circumstances by certain persons; and for connected purposes.
	It is long overdue that we call time on the so-called war on drugs launched 45 years ago by the then President of the United States of America, Richard Nixon. Since then, billions of dollars every year have gone straight into the hands of organised crime, Governments have been corrupted by the drugs trade, thousands upon thousands of people have lost their lives in countries such as Mexico and Colombia, profits from the drugs trade have funded terrorism—as recognised by the United Nations Security Council—and thousands of our fellow citizens every year are criminalised for using drugs. This has been a catastrophic failure.
	There is an urgent and compelling case for a more rational approach. Thankfully, around the world, sense is breaking out. In the United States, Colorado, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have all legalised cannabis, introducing a regulated market. Uruguay has done the same thing. In Europe, Portugal has decriminalised drug use—a move that now has cross-party support from right to left—and is instead taking a health-based approach. Drug-related deaths and sexually transmitted diseases due to drug use have decreased dramatically as a result of the change. And now in Canada, the new Liberal Government have been elected on a manifesto that commits them to legislating for the legalisation of cannabis. My plea is that in this country we should base our approach on evidence and on reducing harms rather than on fear and anxiety about public reaction. My sense is that the public are, in many respects, way ahead of the politicians on this subject.
	My starting point is that I am instinctively hostile to drugs, legal and illegal. Tobacco kills about 100,000 people in our country every year. Alcohol causes untold damage to very many families, not least because of its association with domestic violence. It also leads to violence on our streets. The most potent strains of cannabis also carry health risks, including psychosis and memory loss, but do we really think that we best protect people by leaving the supply of cannabis in the hands of organised crime? No criminal is interested in people’s welfare. When someone chooses to buy cannabis, they have no idea what they are buying or how potent the product is. So-called skunk is widely available on the criminal market in every town and city across our country. Any idea that we can protect people by keeping it illegal is fanciful. No one now believes that we can actually win the war on drugs, so a public policy intended to protect people from harm is achieving precisely the opposite, and we are putting billions of pounds every year into the pockets of organised crime. What a spectacularly stupid self-defeating policy!
	Some people raise a legitimate anxiety about people moving from cannabis to harder, more dangerous drugs, but the risk is self-evidently far higher when people buy from criminals, who have a direct interest in persuading them to do just that. On top of that, we criminalise tens of thousands of people every year for the use of cannabis, blighting their careers, damaging their life chances and restricting their ability to travel. Many people with mental ill health resort to cannabis as a relief from the pain they suffer, and then we criminalise them. What a cruel, unjust policy that is. We criminalise multiple sclerosis sufferers and many others who use cannabis to relieve pain, so I strongly support the “End Our Pain” campaign.
	There is real hypocrisy here. While those people are knocked back by criminal convictions, others, usually the more privileged, go on to build successful careers. How many members of the Government have smoked cannabis while maintaining their support for the conviction of their fellow citizens? The Prime Minister was a reformer. It has also been reported that he and others were caught smoking cannabis at Eton. He has gone on to do quite well. Having signed up to a Select Committee on Home Affairs report in 2002 calling for the then Labour Government to initiate a discussion of alternative ways, including the possibility of legalisation and regulation, to tackle the global drugs dilemma, he retreated once elected Conservative leader and now seems implacably opposed to reform. Why has the Prime Minister changed his mind? Why continue to allow our fellow citizens to be put at risk, with the possibility of criminal conviction, for doing exactly what he did?
	My party, the Liberal Democrats, commissioned an independent expert panel to advise on a more rational approach. The panel was made up of leading experts and included a retired chief constable of Cambridgeshire, Tom Lloyd, and the serving chief constable of Durham, Mike Barton. They know better than anyone the drain on police time caused by dealing with drug possession offences. The report, published on 8 March, is rational, wise and balanced. It points to a different approach, and the Bill seeks to implement that approach.
	The proposed framework is based on the primary goal of protecting and enhancing public health and community safety, with a particular focus on the health and wellbeing of vulnerable and marginalised groups. It is guided by evidence and deliberately cautious and proposes regular reviews. It sets out plans to establish a cannabis regulatory authority. Producers and products and sales would be licensed. Cannabis would be sold through licensed outlets. There would be mandatory provision of health advice to consumers at the point of sale. Cannabis would be sold in plain packaging. There would be a minimum age of 18 for the purchase and consumption of cannabis. Critically, there would be controls on potency, with a minimum requirement of 4% cannabidiol, which is important for reducing the risk of dependence, psychosis and memory loss. Of course, no such safeguards are available on the existing criminal-controlled market.
	The expectation is that sales could raise up to £1 billion in tax. There would be significant savings of police time, enabling them to focus on serious and violent crime. Limited amounts of home growing for personal use would be permitted, with an enforceable limit of plants per household. The scheme would also permit small-scale licensed production for membership-based cannabis social clubs similar to those that have existed for years in Spain. They would have to be operated on a not-for-profit basis and would be subject to conditions, including limiting the size of clubs to fewer than 100 adult members and limiting per-member production and supply. It would remain a serious criminal offence to drive while impaired by cannabis.
	I understand why many people’s first instinct might be to fear the consequences of legalising cannabis, yet thinking through the disastrous consequences of maintaining prohibition of this drug—the profiting of criminals, the health risks resulting from people not knowing what they are buying, the criminalising of so many people, including those with mental ill health and multiple sclerosis—leads to the recognition that a new, more rational approach is desperately needed.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Norman Lamb, Tim Farron, Mr Nick Clegg, Tom Brake, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Caroline Lucas, Paul Flynn, Michael Fabricant, Crispin Blunt and Mr Peter Lilley present the Bill.
	Norman Lamb accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 April, and to be printed (Bill 156).

High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill

[Relevant documents: Ninth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2013-14, High speed rail: on track?, HC 851, and the Government Response, HC 1085; Oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 25 March 2014, High speed rail: update, HC 1193; Oral evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 17 November 2014, on HS2: update, HC 793; Sixth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Follow up to PHSO Report of an investigation into a complaint about HS2 Ltd, HC 793; Second Special Report from the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, HC 129; First Special Report from the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, HC 698; First Special Report of Session 2014-15 from the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Bill, HC 338.]
	Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Select Committee, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 19
	 — 
	Vocational qualifications

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on vocational qualifications obtained in each financial year in connection with HS2 construction.
	(2) Each such report must contain an account of vocational qualifications gained by individuals employed in constructing the network referred to in section 1(1), in preparing for such construction, and in connected and ancillary activities, broken down by type of qualification and activity.
	(3) Each such report must contain an overall assessment of the costs of vocational training for relevant qualifications and by whom such costs were incurred.
	(4) In this section, “financial year” means—
	(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending;
	(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.
	(5) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.”— (Mr Goodwill.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Robert Goodwill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 1—Reimbursement of local authorities for expenses and lost business rate revenue resulting from HS2—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct an assessment of costs incurred by local authorities that arise directly and indirectly from the construction and future operation of HS2, including staff costs, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to reimburse local authorities for those costs is made available.
	(2) To the extent that such additional funding is not made available through service level agreements, the Secretary of State for Transport shall make the additional funding available through other means of local authority funding within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.
	(3) The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government shall appoint an independent auditor to assess the extent of any shortfall in local authority revenue attributable to closure of or movement of businesses and consequential diminution in business rates.
	(4) The Secretary of State for Transport shall establish a mechanism whereby any such shortfall shall be made good within six months of the end of the relevant financial year.’
	This new clause is intended to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for costs consequential on the construction of HS2, and to ensure that there is compensation for lost business rate revenue.
	New clause 2—Reimbursement of local authorities for damage to highways resulting from HS2 construction—
	‘The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Transport shall conduct six-monthly assessments of the amounts required to repair and make good highways in each county following construction of HS2 Phase One, and shall ensure that such additional funding as is required to meet those amounts is made available to local authorities.’
	This new clause is intended to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for highways repair costs consequential on the construction of HS2.
	New clause 3—Amount of funds allocated to the Business and Local Economy Fund and Community and Environments Fund—
	‘The Secretary of State for Transport shall allocate a sum of £150,000,000 to the funds established to support business and local economy and community and environment initiatives to mitigate and address the effects of HS2 construction.’
	This new clause is intended to increase the amounts allocated by the Department for Transport to the Business and Local Economy Fund and the Community and Environment Fund from £30m to £150m.
	New clause 4—Compensation procedures—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State for Transport shall ensure that included within contested valuation procedures for claimants under statutory or discretionary HS2 compensation schemes are processes for valuation by a valuer with knowledge of local markets.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all compensation applications are acknowledged within a period of two weeks and responded to substantively within a period of ten weeks, failing which the application will be deemed accepted.’
	This new clause is intended to insert procedures for valuation by local valuers in disputed compensation cases, and to seek to ensure timely responses to compensation applications.
	New clause 20—Public Sector Operators—
	‘(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (public-sector operators not to be franchisees) does not apply in relation to the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement—
	(a) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more Phase One of High Speed 2 passenger services, or
	(b) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more other services for the carriage of passengers by railway where—
	(i) the services run wholly or partly on the route of Phase One of High Speed 2, and
	(ii) the services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption because of the construction of Phase One of High Speed 2.
	(2) The following may in particular be taken into account in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption—
	(a) the frequency with which the services are likely to be disrupted,
	(b) the duration of the period in which the services are likely to be disrupted (and, in particular, its duration relative to the length of the franchise term),
	(c) the severity of any likely disruption.
	(3) In this section—
	“franchisee”, “franchise agreement” and “franchise term” have the meanings given by section 23 of the Railways Act 1993 (designated passenger services to be provided under franchise agreements).’
	New clause 21—Financial Reports—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on expenditure under this Act in relation to each financial year.
	(2) Each report must contain details of—
	(a) expenditure incurred during the financial year to which the report relates (with capital and resource expenditure specified separately in relation to construction and other activity under this Act and in respect of each head of expenditure referred to in section 1(4)(a) to (c) of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013);
	(b) the extent to which expenditure incurred during that year represents an overspend or underspend as against the budget for such expenditure for the year;
	(c) the likely effect of any such overspend or underspend on a total budget of £55.7 billion in 2015 prices (which includes construction and the cost of rolling stock);
	(d) total expenditure incurred under section 67 up to the end of that year;
	(e) sums or assets received in that year in connection with expenditure incurred under this Act, including in relation to section 48.
	(3) In this section, “financial year” means—
	(a) the period beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and ending;
	(b) each subsequent period of 12 months.
	(4) The Secretary of State must lay each report under this section before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.’
	New clause 26—Protection of business continuity by extended notice of entry in the case of vulnerable businesses—
	‘(1) If an operator of a business or undertaking believes that the business or undertaking’s continued operation or profitability would be vulnerable if inadequate notice is received of the planned exercise of powers under sections 4, 5, 6, 12 or 15 of this Act and the associated schedules, the operator may notify the Secretary of State of this belief.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “inadequate notice” means a period of notice that would not provide a reasonable amount of time for the business or undertaking to relocate to a new premises and refit that premises to a reasonable standard before the exercise of the powers.
	(3) Upon receipt of such notification, the Secretary of State must facilitate a dialogue with the operator in relation to timing and funding of business relocation, and required notice periods, and shall consider the reasons for the operator’s belief.
	(4) Unless the dialogue provides a satisfactory resolution within three months of initial notification—
	(a) a 12-month minimum notice period shall apply for the exercise of powers mentioned in subsection (1) in relation to the relevant business or undertaking; and
	(b) the early compensation payable to the operator shall be 100%, not 90%, of the estimated relocation costs, and such compensation shall be payable in full, nine months before the anticipated relocation date notified by the operator.”
	New clause 27—Report on classification of HS2 as England-only project—
	‘Within 3 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on—
	(a) the classification of HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of Treasury expenditure, and
	(b) how much extra money Wales would receive in terms of Barnett consequential money as a result of such classification.’
	This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on reclassifying HS2 as an England-only project for the purposes of calculating Treasury expenditure through the Barnett Formula and how much more money Wales would have received as a result.
	New clause 30—Community detriment fund—
	‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish a community detriment fund.
	(2) The community detriment fund will provide an additional source of funding to communities, supplemental to that available through the community and environment fund.
	(3) The community detriment fund will be available to address adverse impacts of HS2 construction on communities, including but not limited to impaired accessibility, diminution in availability of community amenities, and physical effects of construction.
	(4) A principal objective of the fund will be to remove the need for formal compensation claims and to provide an expedited means of claiming funding for detriment.
	(5) The fund will be available only to address adverse effects on communities, not impacts on individual households, businesses or undertakings.
	(6) Among the measures that may be considered as available for funding to address detriment shall be transport facilities such as shuttle services.’
	New clause 32—Review of fairness of rural support zone compensation—
	‘The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the reasons for situating the boundary of the Rural Support Zone in west London which shall be laid before both House of Parliament within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent.’
	New clause 33—Compensation—
	‘(1) Within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a report responding to a review of compensation applicable to those affected by HS2 Phases One and Two which shall by then have reported in accordance with directions already issued.
	(2) The review shall consider the following—
	(a) whether a compensation framework based on a property bond system could be an equally or more effective means of compensating those affected by blight from HS2 construction and operation while maintaining a functioning property market, having due regard to demands on public expenditure and investment;
	(b) whether the current rateable value limit for compensation and blight claims by owner-occupiers of business premises should be abolished or amended;
	(c) whether loss payment ceilings are fair and appropriate;
	(d) whether a higher proportion of advance compensation for relocation than the current 90% should be payable in certain instances;
	(e) whether the time limits for claiming compensation where no land is taken should be re-evaluated;
	(f) the position of those affected by blight caused by HS2 whose property is subject to mortgage and who may find themselves unable to remortgage or in a position of negative equity as a result of such blight;
	(g) whether those considering a claim for compensation should receive advance payment of fees for professional advice.’
	Amendment 15,in clause 48, page18,line8, after “considers” insert
	“having regard to the relevant development plan,”.

Robert Goodwill: I must confess that feel like a queue-jumper, because I added my name and the Government’s support to new clause 19 and amendment 15 only last night. I will be brief, because I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) will want to expand on them and to explain why his case was so convincing and compelling. It is another example of how our new railway will be delivered not only on a cross-party basis in this House, but with the support of the great cities of the midlands and the north.
	I welcome new clause 19 on vocational qualifications. I strongly believe in the importance of ensuring that we utilise the opportunities that HS2 will create for skills and jobs, which is why we have invested in the National College for High Speed Rail. New clause 19 will further bolster the importance of delivering skills as part of the development of HS2. As such, the Government support it becoming part of the Bill.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, because I know that he needs to get on. Does he agree that it is important that the National Construction College and the Construction Industry Training Board are closely involved in this skills initiative?

Robert Goodwill: Indeed, I look forward to being in Doncaster soon with the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton), the Opposition Chief Whip, to cut the first sod in that project. It is important that we look at skills across the board. The college’s hub and spoke arrangement will enable other educational establishments to engage fully and will allow for other qualifications.
	Similarly, I welcome amendment 15 from the Opposition. It relates to clause 48, the purpose of which is to ensure that the regeneration opportunities presented by HS2 are maximised in a timely manner. It is a backstop power and we expect that local authorities will lead such opportunities using their existing powers, but in the event that development is impeded, we will have the ability to step in to ensure that development progresses. It is important that such development takes into account relevant development plans. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) tabled the amendment, and I urge all hon. and right hon. Members to support it.
	Turning to the other proposed changes, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has proposed several new clauses and amendments. She has been a tireless advocate for her constituents affected by HS2. However, all her points have been considered before, at length, through the
	Select Committee process, parliamentary debates, and the many parliamentary questions she has asked my Department. The process has delivered clear benefits to her constituency, including a 2.6 km tunnel extension, meaning that almost 86% of the route in her constituency is tunnelled with the rest in a cutting. Her constituency has also benefited from the removal of an area of sustainable placement at Hunts Green and more noise barriers along that cutting. I acknowledge the points made but do not believe that new clauses 1 to 4 should be added to the Bill.
	New clause 20 deals with the nationalisation of rail services, an area of ideological difference between the Government and the Opposition. I am therefore unlikely to convince them on it, and, I suspect, vice versa. It is clear to the Government that the franchising process delivers better services, better value for money and a better railway. Since privatisation, the rail industry has been transformed, with the number of passenger journeys more than doubling over the past 20 years. We believe this remains the right approach overall for Britain’s railway.
	In any case, the new clause is unnecessary, as under the existing legislative framework it is possible for the state to operate rail services, as happened temporarily on the east coast main line. It is possible, and indeed quite likely, that the state might run HS2 initially, to prove certainty on operation and passenger numbers, but for the long-term successful future of HS2, a privately operated franchise is the best way forward.

Jonathan Reynolds: The Minister is giving a pretty fair assessment of how he sees this proceeding. The new clause provides for a permissive power, meaning that it would simply be available going forward. The proposal has been mirrored in previous pieces of legislation, such as that dealing with Crossrail, so what is the Government’s objection to a permissive clause of this kind?

Robert Goodwill: I thought I just said that this power is already available and therefore this is a superfluous new clause and we do not need it to give us these powers. I very much doubt Opposition Members will agree with my view that nationalisation of the railways is not the way forward, so stuck as they seem to be in the 1970s, but I hope I may have provided sufficient explanation as to why this power is not required.
	We have given consideration to the other proposed new clauses and amendments. Although I understand the importance of some of the issues raised, I do not believe they belong in the Bill, as they have already been considered during the Select Committee process. To conclude, in order not to take up any more time than is necessary, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to support the inclusion of new clause 19 and amendment 15, but I urge them to not to press the other proposals, which I do not believe are required.

Andy McDonald: I am pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate and play a part in this Bill’s progress. We fully appreciate the importance of this vital piece of infrastructure and the benefits it will bring to our country for generations to come. It is not common to find such consensus in this House, but I am pleased that both the Government and the Opposition understand the need for this high-speed railway. HS2 was, of course, the brainchild of the previous Labour Government, but I readily acknowledge the work that the current Government have done in progressing the project. It is to be very much welcomed for the country that we have such consensus across the House on such important national infrastructure projects.
	In that same vein, I shall discuss new clause 19, which stands in the name of the Minister, as well as in my name, those of some of his colleagues and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). It deals with vocational qualifications.

Bill Cash: Just in case it might be thought that there is not still entrenched opposition to these proposals, may I say, speaking not only for myself but for many of my colleagues and for people in Staffordshire, where we get no benefit from this scheme at all, given the damage it is doing to our countryside, that I wish to register opposition to this in its entirety?

Andy McDonald: I think I used the word “consensus” not “unanimity”. I sincerely thank the Minister for his constructive approach to this issue and for adding his name to mine by way of support. There is agreement across the House that both jobs and skills are a core part of the case for HS2, and I note that the recent Shaw report calls for much deeper strategic engagement of trade unions across the rail industry. Accordingly, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister and HS2 Ltd for their positive engagement with the TUC in securing an agreement to make sure that trade unions, HS2 and its suppliers work together to maximise HS2’s economic and labour market potential?

John Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman at all worried about the possible job impact on the existing railway, because most of the passengers for this line are going to come from journeys that would otherwise have been made on existing trains? Presumably, there will therefore be a decline in fares, revenue and job opportunity on the existing railway.

Andy McDonald: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point: this is about having a positive impact on capacity issues. That is the singular and most important purpose of this development.
	In the words of the magnificent Frances O’Grady:
	“It is clear that trade union engagement is vital to ensuring that HS2 is delivered to time and to budget—and that it is delivered in a manner that reflects the best of socially responsible development.”
	The agreement contains the commitment to pay the voluntary living wage—and the voluntary London living wage—and to offer a minimum number of apprenticeships and workforce skills development, among other things. The agreement is an excellent example of how industrial relations should be approached from the outset in projects of this magnitude, and indeed throughout the construction industry, and I hope that it can be the template for good practice throughout industry. The construction of such infrastructure projects places demands on a nation to provide the necessary skilled workforce, creating opportunities for people, and younger people in particular, to equip themselves with not just the vocational qualifications to assist in the construction of this railway, but the tools necessary to forge careers that will be of benefit to both themselves and the nation long after the completion of HS2. Labour Members welcome the fact that, following on from the success of the Kings Cross construction skills centre, a National College for High Speed Rail will be located both in Birmingham and Doncaster, providing specialist vocational training to the next generation of engineers working on HS2 and beyond. We also welcome the fact that HS2 Ltd will provide £4.1 million towards a Euston construction skills centre.

Andrew Bridgen: I, too, am sorry to break the cosy consensus of the two Front-Bench teams, who seem to be conspiring to spend possibly £100 billion of taxpayers’ money on what I believe to be a white elephant. Does the shadow Minister have no concern at all about supporting the Government on a major infrastructure project where the cost-benefit ratio is as low as £1.40 for every pound spent?

Andy McDonald: Let me clarify that this is not about a cosy consensus; it is about rigorous examination. There has been a forensic examination of this matter through a lengthy Select Committee and a Bill Committee. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong about the cost-benefit ratio. The correct figure is 2.3:1.

Andrew Bridgen: rose—

Andy McDonald: I have already given way and I must now make some progress.
	The Government estimate that as many as 2,000 apprenticeship opportunities will be created by HS2, and there will be about 25,000 people employed during its construction. That is welcomed by Members from all parts of the House. Because of the importance of the creation of vocational qualifications in connection with HS2’s construction, we feel it is appropriate that Parliament is given proper oversight on progress in this regard. That is why we tabled new clause 19, which will impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on vocational qualifications obtained in each financial year in connection with HS2 construction. It seems to us to be eminently sensible for the Secretary of State to report annually on the progress of the creation of vocational qualifications, and I am grateful that the Government have accepted that the new clause should be part of the Bill.

Iain Stewart: I support the new clause. Will this annual report capture people gaining qualifications not only through HS2 Ltd and the key construction companies, but further up the supply chain?

Andy McDonald: The new clause is focused principally on HS2 Ltd, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I am sure the Minister and the Secretary of State are listening intently to him. The intention must be to embrace all those within the supply chain.
	Amendment 15 would make a small change to clause 48. It simply seeks to insert a requirement that as and when the Secretary of State considers that there is an opportunity for regeneration or development, and land is to be acquired compulsorily for that purpose, regard be had to the relevant development plans that obtain in respect of that particular location. I am grateful that such a modest and reasonable amendment finds favour with the Government.
	New clause 21 deals with financial reports. It would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prepare an annual report on expenditure in each financial year. Each report would contain details of any overspend or underspend against the budget for such expenditure for the year, as well as the likely effect on the total budget.
	Labour has been consistent in seeking to hold the Government to account on the cost of HS2, and this new clause would put greater transparency into the process and ensure that Parliament has proper oversight of expenditure. I am aware that expenditure under the Bill would also be reported as part of the Department’s annual report and accounts, but it is our belief that a project with these costs and on the scale of HS2 warrants more detailed oversight of expenditure from Parliament.
	Considering that much of the opposition to HS2 has been because of the cost of the project and concerns about ballooning prices, it would be prudent of the Government to allay some of those concerns by ensuring that parliamentarians and the public keep a keen eye on the cost of it. The Prime Minister has previously stated that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if the Government would like such sentiments to be accepted as more than empty sloganeering then, hopefully, they will support this new clause, which introduces into the process a greater degree of transparency in expenditure.
	New clause 20, on public sector operators, would disapply section 25 of the Railways Act 1993, allowing, but not requiring, phase 1 of HS2 passenger services to be run by the public sector. I hope that this does not affect the spirit of consensus and agreement. I am delighted that Labour is committed to the public ownership of the railways. Public opinion on that issue is clear: around two thirds of the public support the nation’s railways being run by the public sector, with fewer than one in five opposing the policy. Public ownership is backed by people across the political spectrum—by Labour, Tory, Lib Dem and UK Independence party voters, although, unfortunately, it is not backed by the latter three parties in this place.
	When one looks back at the history of rail privatisation and its impact on the commuting public, it is not difficult to understand why there is overwhelming public support for bringing railway services back into public ownership. Quite simply, the Tory privatisation of British Rail was a rushed, botched job that had more to do with ideology than any clear plan for the railways. The legacy that we have been left with is a fragmented, inefficient and expensive network.

Simon Burns: rose—

Andy McDonald: I will make some progress.

Simon Burns: Come on!

Andy McDonald: No, I will crack on.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Andy McDonald: I will give way in a moment.
	According to the McNulty report, the fragmentation of our rail network has left us with an efficiency gap of between 30% and 40% compared with other European networks, which means that the money that should be used to address the cost of travel and to fund much needed investment is needlessly wasted.

Simon Burns: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We had this litany from him, which was put just as eloquently, upstairs in Committee. I wish to ask him this: first, if the privatisation of the railways was such a disaster and disservice to the travelling public, why do we now have record levels of people using the railways; and secondly, why did the last Labour Government not renationalise it during their 13 years in power?

Andy McDonald: I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. It was because the last Labour Government put record investment into the railways and made it the safest railway in Europe. We were clearing up the mess of that botched privatisation of Railtrack, which cost people’s lives. We made the network safe.
	We have been left with a ticketing system that is the most expensive and confusing in Europe. Indeed, commuter fares are up by a quarter since 2010, having risen three times faster than wage growth. What the public clearly do not accept is that private and many foreign state-owned companies receive subsidies from the UK taxpayer and make significant profits at the expense of rail passengers.

Karen Lumley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that?

Andy McDonald: I will carry on, because I know that people want to contribute to the debate.
	In illustrating the benefits of publicly owned operators, one could hardly ask for a better example than the recent east coast main line. The last Labour Government took the important step of bringing that back into public operation after the private operator reneged on its obligations in 2009. East coast proved itself to be one of the most efficient operators, returning more than £1 billion to the taxpayer in premium payments as well as investing every penny of profit back into the service. In addition, fares were kept down in real terms in 2014 at a time when no privately run franchise took the same step. East coast had record passenger satisfaction and its engagement with the workforce was an unparalleled success.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am sure that the shadow Minister will welcome the new service that will be starting from Middlesbrough as a result of the Virgin franchise, which will serve his constituents and provide new trains.

Andy McDonald: Of course I welcome it; it would be churlish not to. Why would I not welcome that? It does not mean that the system is right, but, for goodness sake, the trains are getting to the right places.
	It is difficult to see how east coast’s brilliant delivery for the taxpayer and for the commuter could be seen as a failure, or in any way undesirable. It simply does not make any sense for the UK taxpayer to subsidise foreign state-owned companies so that citizens of Germany, Holland, France and elsewhere can enjoy cheaper and superior services.
	Quite simply, the rejection of even the possibility of public ownership is driven by an outdated ideology and is totally out of kilter with the views of a large majority of the public—including many Conservative voters—which is why I am so pleased that Labour is committed to a publicly owned service that puts the passenger first rather than the profits of private or foreign state-owned companies, as is currently the case.

John Redwood: rose—

Andy McDonald: No, I am going to move on.
	We have heard the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Transport and others speak in glowing terms about how High Speed 2, when completed, will be a proud national achievement, and I completely agree with that. The scale of the project, the amount of talent that will be utilised in its design and construction, and the dedication over the years ahead will be a mark of pride, and represent a proud feat of British engineering and ingenuity.
	It is my contention that if we, as a nation, are good enough to build a world-class high-speed railway, then we are good enough to run it, too. From the initial privatisation to the Government’s re-franchising of the east coast main line, Tory rail policy has always been far too focused on its “private good, public bad” ideology. However, new clause 20 would not require the sort of Damascene conversion that we witnessed from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) earlier this week. It asks only that the Government keep an open mind. New clause 20 would allow, but not require, High Speed 2 passenger services to be run in the public sector. A similar clause was part of the Crossrail Act 2008, leaving open the option to run passenger services in the public sector. Indeed, we have worded this new clause so that it is as similar as possible to section 26 of the 2008 Act.
	May I remind the Minister and the House that the Conservative party did not reject the idea of at least keeping an open mind about who might be the best operator to run Crossrail—or the Elizabeth line—in future years, and it would be disappointing to see the Conservative party move from a position of pragmatism to one of sheer ideology. It would be talking Britain down to suggest that private companies and the state-owned rail companies of the Netherlands, France and Germany are able to run successfully passenger services on our railways, but we ourselves are not. I hope that the Government do not have such a pessimistic view of our capabilities as a nation and will vote in favour of new clause 20.

Cheryl Gillan: It was disheartening to hear the Minister dismiss my amendments in this group before hearing what I had to say, although I am grateful to him for acknowledging that over the past six years I have fought for my constituents and their rights and interests in the face of opposition from many people outside this House. My new clauses in this group are practical and sensible and will, I think, assist my constituents and others up and down the line.
	New clause 1 is about local authority finance. Local authorities the length of the HS2 route have received no extra help to support their work on this major infrastructure project. The burden on my two local councils, Buckinghamshire County Council and Chiltern District Council, has been enormous, but the new clause would also apply to other councils.
	Buckinghamshire County Council is naturally concerned that without central Government intervention and help its costs will continue to escalate. If the last six years are anything to go by, they certainly will. The county council’s outturn figure for 2015-16 is nearly £520,000 for costs relating to the legal petitioning process, engagement with HS2 Ltd and getting the best deal for Buckinghamshire residents. The council has just submitted the recharge to HS2 Ltd on the current memorandum of understanding and can recoup barely £10,000 for the last year. Why must taxpayers in Chesham and Amersham and elsewhere not only pay for this railway to be built, but pay again through their council tax for their local authorities to carry out inescapable pre and post-construction work for which they get very little help or none at all? Over the past six years, Chiltern District Council has spent nearly £1.18 million on complying with HS2 requirements —a huge amount for a district authority.
	Councils have paid out literally millions in the past six years. The costs will only grow during the construction phase and there is no guarantee that local authorities will be fully recompensed. They would appreciate a clear, legally enforceable commitment from the Government that the extra burden will be recognised, particularly in the light of the local government finance settlement. My county, Buckinghamshire, was heavily affected by the settlement. It was only through myself and other Buckinghamshire MPs making very strong representations that we got some increased moneys for our local authorities. If accepted, new clause 1 would ensure security for our local authorities along the whole route where service agreements do not provide additional funding, received by the end of the year. The Minister should appreciate that I am asking for statutory and legally enforceable requirements because there is great distrust of the process so far. I think it is essential to enshrine the provision in statute, so that it is legally enforceable.
	New clause 2 is designed to give statutory enforceability to the Department for Transport’s intention to reimburse local authorities for highways repair costs consequential on the construction of HS2.

Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee pressed HS2 hard on reimbursement to highways authorities regarding damage to verges, culverts, drains, inspection covers and so on, and the company gave a very positive response? New clause 2 is a belt-and-braces provision. Does she agree that HS2 has already given quite firm commitments?

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate the work my hon. Friend did on the Select Committee. He is correct that there are undertakings, but they are not enforceable and I am afraid that HS2 does not have a good track record of either keeping good records and accurate information or of following through on its promises, hence my decision to table the new clauses. If HS2 is in good faith going to adhere to those undertakings, it should have no fear of their being put in the Bill. That is why I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the new clauses to be accepted.

John Redwood: My right hon. Friend might like to point out that there are 65 pages of road and footpath closures scheduled in the Bill and 67 pages of associated works to existing roads, railways and utilities. The work is massive in scale and, obviously, all those involved will need compensation.

Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Perhaps that shows the scale of the battle that has been going on for six years, in which people are trying to defend their environment and locality or, if they cannot have the whole project cancelled, at least to get the best possible deal for their locality.

Victoria Prentis: In my constituency, we have had significant problems in engaging with HS2—and not just me as the Member of Parliament; the county council and the district council have simply not had their letters answered. That gives us no assurance that HS2 will engage in a timely fashion with those who have to use the roads every day.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a point that is entirely familiar to me and many other people along the line of the route. That is why I want these not unreasonable assurances to be put in the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: It seems to me rather strange that the Government will not accept the amendments. The history of statutory undertakers doing work on highways shows without any difficulty the shoddy restoration that takes place afterwards. In this case, we are talking of a massive project involving many miles of roads that will require repair. My right hon. Friend may agree that the assurances being given ought to be reinforced by statutory powers.

Cheryl Gillan: Any addition to my right hon. and learned Friend’s point would be otiose. He is absolutely correct.

Andrew Bridgen: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the point about HS2 liaising with the public? Is she aware of the damning ombudsman’s report that came out last night, which stated that HS2 regarded consultation is merely a box-ticking exercise?

Cheryl Gillan: I drew the House’s attention to that report in a point of order. The report is appended to today’s debate, but of course there was no possibility of tabling amendments that referred to that report in an attempt to alter HS2’s behaviour.
	New clause 2 is designed to ensure that all local authorities are properly compensated for any damage to roads as a result of HS2 constructions. As others have confirmed, that vital safeguard should be added to the Bill. The Secretary of State, who is now in his place on the Front Bench, visited my constituency earlier this month and saw at first hand some of the problems that my constituents face. I am grateful for that visit. He also saw the problems we have in Buckinghamshire with potholes. I am particularly concerned about the roads in and around Great Missenden. Quite by chance, my right hon. Friend witnessed maintenance works being carried out on those roads during his visit.
	Buckinghamshire County Council highways authority estimates that it will spend about £7.5 million on pothole-related maintenance over the next five years. That figure takes no account patching, resurfacing, drainage, road sweeping and other related costs. I believe that considerable additional costs will arise from the large number of heavy goods vehicles pounding their way up and down some of Buckinghamshire’s fragile roads. Local authorities may well be reimbursed for reasonable costs, but what are reasonable costs? I want them to be reimbursed fully and I want that to be enshrined in statute, to make sure that the provision is both sufficient and justiciable.
	New clause 3 is intended to increase the amounts allocated by the Department for Transport to the business and local economy fund and the community and environment fund from £30 million to £150 million. The £30 million originally announced for those funds to assist those affected by HS2 has been felt across the board to be meagre and insufficient, especially as the funding is intended to cover the entire route of phase 1. The Select Committee acknowledged the significant shortfall and the Government’s response to its final report stated that the sum would be increased to £40 million. I contend that that is not enough. The impacts of the project will be long standing and severe for the environment, local authorities and communities. Through new clause 3, I propose that the funding be increased to £150 million to give those affected the compensation they deserve and to ensure that adverse effects are minimised.

Bill Cash: Both of us have signed new clause 33 on compensation by reference to a property bond. I wanted to put that on the record. My right hon. Friend is doing a great job, and I do not want to take up the time of the House to refer to new clause 33, knowing that she agrees with me.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and grateful for the support that I have received from colleagues across the piece.
	On new clause 3, there is currently no information on how the funds will be divided, which areas will be prioritised or how the money could be spent. There is also no clarification whether, for example, the fund to be allocated will include the moneys already allocated to the Colne valley. Will those come out of this funding envelope? There has been a suggestion that the money will be delivered locally through local enterprise partnerships, but that would be most unsuitable. In Buckinghamshire, for example, we have two overlapping LEPs. How would the money be administered? I think it should be kept separate from the LEPs and genuinely given to local groups so that they can decide how best to distribute the funds. I urge the Minister both to increase the funds and to provide further details on how they will be administered.
	The last new clause to which I shall speak in this group is new clause 4, which deals with compensation. All the MPs who have constituencies along the route will know that compensation issues have caused great worry and stress to our constituents, and many of the recommendations of the HS2 hybrid Bill Select Committee, although welcome, have yet to translate into changes to the schemes. The Select Committee’s report in February 2016 stated that
	“the Government said that it would work to implement a revised process for the valuation of properties for ‘Need to Sell’ that will allow more local valuers to be used”.
	That review was promised for autumn last year, but we are still waiting.
	The Department for Transport’s response to the Select Committee report is silent on the valuation point, and although a response was promised before Third Reading, when I last looked I had not yet received that. I may be wrong—HS2 tends to slip out its documents just in time for debates, which I think is poor practice. In this case such poor practice is affecting people’s lives. Implementing a fair valuation process for property owners who are receiving unacceptably low offers from HS2 is of paramount importance.
	I still have a large number of constituents who have been negotiating with HS2 for months to get a fair price for their property, and I know from colleagues that it is a similar story up and down the route. I have been appalled at the treatment of individuals, who have had to employ expensive lawyers even to get timely and rational answers from those employed by HS2 or from HS2 itself. My colleagues and I have raised these points for years, yet there continues to be a litany of errors from HS2. There have been internal emails that are rude and disrespectful about constituents. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report published earlier today refers to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman report, which accused HS2 of being guilty of maladministration. I believe that that has characterised the way in which HS2 has dealt with people who have lost their houses, their businesses and their land.

Victoria Prentis: One of my greatest concerns about going forward without the Select Committee, which has been of enormous help to those of us whose constituents have been affected, is that there is nobody to help us mediate with HS2 Ltd and to encourage the company to respond to us in a timely fashion. There is no transparency about the way it does business. Does my right hon. Friend have any ideas to help us with this?

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said today from the Opposition Dispatch Box that transparency would be the watchword for HS2. I agree with my hon. Friend—transparency has not been the watchword for HS2. Right from the beginning, when the Major Projects Authority’s reports were withheld from this House and from the Select Committee that considered the Bill, there has been the reverse of transparency. That is what is so distressing about this project; it could have been handled so much better. It has let many people down.
	Finally—I know that others want to speak—new clause 4 is designed to ensure that valuers with local knowledge are included on the HS2 panel, and that all compensation applications are responded to substantively within 10 weeks to avoid long periods of uncertainty for property owners on the route.
	I started by saying that I was disappointed that the Minister dismissed my amendments before even hearing what I had to say today, so I am not expecting any positive response. But I have learned always to walk in hope, even on the impossible project of HS2, and I invite the Minister to accept my amendments today and add them to the Bill, thereby showing that he has the respect that I believe this House should have for the people whose lives are affected so drastically by HS2.

Louise Ellman: High Speed 2 is extremely important and is necessary to expand capacity on a railway that is ever increasing in popularity. Where communities are adversely affected, they should be treated properly and there should be adequate compensation. The amount of that compensation is clearly a matter for judgment, and some of the amendments today address that.
	It is exceedingly important, too, that the potential for jobs and economic development created by the building of High Speed 2 is maximised. That was one of the key points that the Transport Committee emphasised when we first looked at High Speed 2 back in 2011. We have published four reports on that since then. Back in 2011 the point considered in new clause 19 was emphasised. We supported High Speed 2 but highlighted the importance of maximising the job opportunities—jobs in the construction of the high-speed network or jobs opened up by economic development in the areas through which HS2 passes—and regional development. I am extremely pleased to see new clause 19 and pleased it has all-party support, because of the focus it puts on jobs.

Michael Fabricant: Does the hon. Lady agree that a link between Euston and St Pancras might offer an opportunity for jobs? My constituents thought they would be able to get on a train in Birmingham and end up in Paris, but instead they have to schlep across London with their heavy bags. Another possible link is one between Curzon Street and New Street, so that there might actually be a connected railway, which at present there is not.

Louise Ellman: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points that are worthy of consideration. I believe the decision likely to be taken later this evening will be the beginning of a very important High Speed 2 network, which may well expand after more people see its benefits.
	New clause 19 refers to the need to look at the qualifications achieved by people working on the construction of High Speed 2. I agree with that, but it should be extended a little to include the diversity of qualifications and employment opportunities that can be offered during construction—the wide range of skills that can be obtained and the potential to attract a wide range of people who could benefit. I hope the aims of the new clause can be extended, if not in words tonight, then in the way it is implemented. I am particularly pleased to see the plans for the skills college at both Birmingham and Doncaster, and I hope they can be extended.
	It is important, and it is implicit in some of the amendments, that economic development in the areas and regions through which High Speed 2 passes is maximised, working with the local enterprise partnerships, local authorities and business. It should not be just the stations through which High Speed 2 passes that benefit, but the surrounding region.
	I also support the proposals to monitor expenditure on High Speed 2, because it is important that the scheme is kept within budget: over £50 billion is a lot of money, even over 20 years.
	People have become unduly focused on the current benefit-cost ratio, which is calculated very specifically. Indeed, looking at the overall network and the wider economic benefits, that ratio is likely to expand to at least 2.3:1, but it is calculated rather restrictively. Under current regulations, the benefit can be calculated for only 67 years, and an assumption is made that the number of passengers on the line will increase by 2.2% annually and then stop in 2036, which is most unlikely. I think it is very likely that the benefit-cost ratio will increase.
	We all need to have some vision in looking at what is required for the future. We need more capacity on the very popular and important railway, an essential part of public transport, bringing job opportunities—for example, in construction—and economic development to the regions and not around the stations. For those reasons, I support a number of the amendments proposed today.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I trust that hon. Members will now be very brief, because we have only 15 minutes left for this part of the debate.

Dominic Grieve: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall be brief.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). I am mindful of the fact that, in promoting this scheme, the Government can make a powerful and perfectly rational case. Indeed, the hon. Lady highlighted some of the points that have been raised. The difficulty that I have, as a constituency MP directly affected by the scheme, is that throughout the whole process of engagement between HS2 and my constituents, HS2’s behaviour towards my constituents has consistently been wanting, both in sensitivity and in its levels of engagement. I have to say that the way in which HS2’s management has dealt with perfectly reasonable objections from people who are very anxious about the future of their communities has led me to be deeply anxious about how this will actually work out in practice.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), in presenting this batch of amendments, has highlighted some key areas where the Government, by providing some greater reassurance, could go a considerable way towards not satisfying everybody—inevitably some people will remain dissatisfied with the proposals—but providing them with reassurance that some of their worst fears about how this will pan out in practice are misplaced. For example, there has been considerable concern about the way in which compensation is calculated. There have been arguments about failure to take account of local features.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way on that point; I intervene because I had wanted to speak on this new clause but now will not have time. We heard cases in the Select Committee where it was quite clear that the lack of local valuers is doing an injustice to the people whose homes are being acquired. Does he agree that the Government must put that injustice right? The Select Committee made very strong recommendations about that aspect. This injustice must be put right.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Yes, these are precisely the areas where Government intervention would be valuable. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, even at this late hour, to give this careful consideration.
	There is a similar story on the relationship with local authorities. Most of our local authorities, like all local authorities in this country, given the difficult conditions resulting from the continuing economic problems besetting our planet, are short of money to carry out important local projects. Therefore, the prospect of having their infrastructure ripped up during the construction process is inevitably a subject of legitimate concern to them. There is no proper reason why they and the local council tax payer should have to bear the end cost of any description on this project going ahead. Here again is an opportunity for my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to beef this up and provide the necessary tools to ensure that HS2 honours these commitments.
	I am no position to speak to HS2, and I do not understand why it has been so deficient in its approach to dealing with local communities, but that is the reality. I note from the Public Administration Committee’s most recent report that HS2 says that it has learnt its lessons and will do things differently in future. I very much hope that that is the case, but until I actually see it with my own eyes and witness it from the comments of my constituents, I have reason to continue to doubt that that will in fact happen. That is all the more reason why these amendments, which are straightforward and should not add to HS2’s costs, or indeed to the burden of carrying out the project, ought to be accepted.

Rupa Huq: I rise to support new clauses 26 and 32. Paradoxically, I agree with most of what has been said today, because I do think that it is possible to be pro-infrastructure investment, pro-progress and pro-brand new trains. I am pro the concept of high-speed rail, but I am not pro-HS2 Ltd and the, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said, the rather cavalier way it operates. In the Select Committee its QC called my residents tedious, which I thought showed complete contempt for them.
	New clause 26 is about protecting vulnerable businesses and the time given for relocation. I have spoken to some of the businesses in the Park Royal area of my constituency. The businesses there are quite mixed. Many of them deal with food preparation—for example, supplying olives to restaurants in the west end—and need to be close to the A40, which is a vital artery. They are family businesses. They have been told that when it happens they will be given three months to relocate. They have a combined turnover in the millions. They are all extremely concerned that they will be forced to close because three months is not enough time for them to start again.
	I spoke with a prop hire company. It occupies thousands of square feet of warehouse space, with antiques and big fat televisions behind wooden veneer cabinets. It supplies props for films such as “Star Wars”. It would find it very difficult to find alternative premises quickly. Those companies would also like an assurance of 100% compensation for their sites, not the 90% on offer.
	The Conservative party is the party of business, surely. It is the party of small and medium-sized enterprises. [Interruption.] I think this new clause has genuine cross-party support, judging by the Members who have signed it. It is deeply worrying that those firms are being forced to move towards what is called extinguishment, because apparently their balance sheets do not show enough turnover, so HS2 considered their financial value to be too small to warrant relocation. That is a slap in the face and an insult to hard-working, small family businesses.

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job of representing her constituents, as she always does. Does she agree—I think this is the purpose of her new clauses—that it is often the businesses in urban areas that are the most fragile and therefore the worst affected, but the levels of compensation and concern shown to them is the worst on offer—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. We do not have time for long interventions.

Rupa Huq: My hon. Friend puts it very well. He anticipates my new clause 32, which is about the fairness of the rural support zone. I know the constituency of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) well, because she and I were on the same ballot paper in 2005. She represents a rural constituency, but the urban and suburban constituencies, such as mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), are not treated the same as rural support zones. I believe that needs to be looked at.
	One house in my constituency has a zero valuation—you could not make this up. Someone wanted to re-mortgage a house in Wells House Road, and the mortgage valuer came up with zero. That would not happen elsewhere. For the sake of fairness, that should be looked at. There seems to be a wrong assumption—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I am aware that there is about to be a vote, so I will say my last sentence. We should not accept that suburban or urban dwellers should simply put up with it. I urge Members to support my two new clauses.

Craig Tracey: I rise to speak to the new clauses in my name and to put the case of my constituents in North Warwickshire, which is arguably the most blighted part of the HS2 route, outside of London.
	I would like to use the short time available to make a final case to the Government to adopt vital protections for local communities such as Kingsbury, Water Orton, Coleshill, Middleton, Lea Marston and Wishaw. Those protections are set out in my three new clauses, as well as in provisions tabled by other right hon. and hon. Members, which I have co-signed.
	A recurring theme my constituents have faced is the lack of engagement from HS2 Ltd during the process to date. Many of the questions that have been asked of the company remain unanswered, and its credibility locally is in tatters. Those affected by HS2 have little confidence that communication will get better during the construction stage; indeed, unsurprisingly, the fear is that, should the Bill be approved by the House, communication will get worse.
	That is why I seek greater protection for North Warwickshire residents. As a result of the impact on our area, we have been given an assurance by HS2 that we are a special case. Sadly, despite numerous requests, the company has neglected to advise us what that protection actually is, what the benefits are or even what it covers. After what my constituents have had to endure over the last six years, they deserve better. They deserve some kind of certainty and an acknowledgment that HS2 and the Government are sympathetic to their case.
	That is why I have introduced new clause 30, which would set up a community fund to protect local communities from the unintended consequences that could arise in the construction phase. The fund would supplement the community and environment fund, and it would address the adverse impacts of HS2’s construction on communities in terms of things such as impaired accessibility, the reduction in the availability of community amenities and the physical effects of construction.
	A principal objective of the fund will be to remove the need for formal compensation claims and to provide an expedited means of claiming funding for detriment. The fund would be available only to address adverse effects on communities, not impacts on individual households, businesses or undertakings. However, among the things that may be considered as eligible for funding would be transport facilities such as shuttle services.
	As I have stated, the Kingsbury area and the surrounding villages are clearly a special case in the context of the HS2 scheme, and there can be no argument about that. Engagement with our community needs to address the requirements that come with that special place, and my other new clauses address the current lack of communication, including in terms of referral, escalation and monitoring. Crucially, they seek to ensure that local people’s complaints are resolved in a timely manner.
	We will hear further arguments later today in the Chamber about HS2’s environmental impact, and it is hard to imagine the change to the landscape that the railhead in Kingsbury will bring, but my constituents will be forced to live with that change.
	I urge the Secretary of State to consider my proposed changes to the Bill and those of other right hon. and hon. Members, which I have supported in the interests of our constituents. Our proposals offer common-sense initiatives to support, and offer mitigation to, those people along the proposed line who need it most.

Jonathan Edwards: I did have a very detailed speech on this important issue for Wales, but I am afraid that time will defeat me, so I will be as quick as possible.
	Ministers will know of my long-standing concerns about the Barnett classification of HS2. The Plaid Cymru position has always been that this is an England-only railway. All the destinations on the map are clearly in
	England. The position of the UK Government has always been that this is a UK-Government railway scheme. However, when it came to the statement of funding policy document that accompanied the comprehensive spending review, the railway is an England and Wales railway, because Scotland and Northern Ireland had a 100% Barnett rating for HS2, while Wales had 0% rating.
	The impact of that, in a project that may well cost more than £80 billion over the next 20 years, will be severe for my country—in terms of not only HS2, but the precedent set for HS3, Crossrail 2 and the Sheffield-to-Manchester subterranean road. These are massive multibillion-pound projects, and Wales is losing out.
	This is an issue of fairness, and unless the Minister says on Third Reading that he will address the issues I have raised in my new clause, my colleagues and I will vote against the Government on Third Reading.

Alan Brown: I will be brief. The SNP welcomes this investment. Although, as has been said, the initial roll-out of the route is in England only, we see the benefits that this can bring to Scotland, and we welcome the aspiration for a sub-three-hour journey time to Glasgow and Edinburgh. I welcome the fact that the Minister says trains will run to Scotland on day one.
	On the back of the comments by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) about Barnett, I would ask the Secretary of State to consider the wider issue of Barnett consequentials and the estimates process. There needs to be more clarity on that, but I welcome the investment in HS2.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 19 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20
	 — 
	Public Sector Operators

‘(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (c. 43) (public-sector operators not to be franchisees) does not apply in relation to the franchisee in respect of a franchise agreement—
	(a) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more Phase One of High Speed 2 passenger services, or
	(b) which relates wholly or mainly to the provision of one or more other services for the carriage of passengers by railway where—
	(i) the services run wholly or partly on the route of Phase One of High Speed 2, and
	(ii) the services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption because of the construction of Phase One of High Speed 2.
	(2) The following may in particular be taken into account in determining whether, for the purposes of subsection (1)(b), services are likely to be subject to substantial disruption—
	(a) the frequency with which the services are likely to be disrupted,
	(b) the duration of the period in which the services are likely to be disrupted (and, in particular, its duration relative to the length of the franchise term),
	(c) the severity of any likely disruption.
	(3) In this section—
	“franchisee”, “franchise agreement” and “franchise term” have the meanings given by section 23 of the Railways Act 1993 (designated passenger services to be provided under franchise agreements).”—(Andy McDonald.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 184, Noes 273.

Question accordingly negatived.
	More than one hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 22 March).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 48
	 — 
	Compulsory acquisition of land for regeneration or relocation

Amendment made: 15, in clause 48,page18,line8, after “considers” insert
	“having regard to the relevant development plan,”—(Mr Goodwill.)

New Clause 6
	 — 
	Chilterns AONB Review Group

“(1) A Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Review Group shall be established.
	(2) The members of the group shall include Buckinghamshire County Council, Chilterns District Council, Wycombe District Council, Aylesbury Vale District Council, the Chilterns Conservation Board, Natural England, key community groups and the nominated undertaker.
	(3) The purpose of the group shall be to identify measures for environmental enhancement in the Chilterns to mitigate against the impact of HS2 railway construction.
	(4) The group shall elect a Chair, who shall not be an employee of the nominated undertaker.
	(5) The group shall receive such funds from the Secretary of State as it considers necessary to perform its functions expeditiously and efficiently.
	(6) The group shall make a twice yearly report with recommendations.
	(7) In the event that the Secretary of State does not accept any recommendation of the group, they shall make a statement to the House within three months of the date of the report, indicating reasons.”—(Mrs Gillan.)
	This new clause is intended to give statutory backing to the establishment and powers of the Chilterns AONB Review Group.
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 7—Obligation to plant trees—
	“(1) The nominated undertaker must publish plans to plant the Referenced Trees within the Construction Period and make arrangements for their maintenance for a period of 10 years from the commencement of services on Phase 1 of HS2.
	(2) The nominated undertaker must provide an annual report to Parliament which shall specify—
	(a) the progress made on planting of the Referenced Trees,
	(b) the number and species of trees planted since the publication of the previous report,
	(c) the position of the trees, groups of trees or woodlands, as the case may be, by reference to a map,
	(d) the adequacy of arrangements to manage Referenced Trees which have been planted previously.
	(3) In subsections (1) and (2) “Referenced Trees” shall mean the trees planted to meet the commitment of two million additional trees to be situated adjacent to Phase 1 of HS2 as set out in the environmental statement referenced in Clause 66(4). In subsection (1) Construction Period shall mean the period between commencement of the Scheduled Works and the commencement of operational service on Phase One of High Speed 2.”
	New clause 8—Office of the HS2 Adjudicator—
	“(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Office of the HS2 Adjudicator hereinafter referred to as “the Adjudicator”.
	(2) Schedule [Adjudicator: status and funding] (which makes further provision about the Adjudicator) shall have effect.
	(3) The Adjudicator has the functions conferred on it by or under any enactment.
	(4) Those functions include—
	(a) enforced functions
	(b) inspection functions,
	(c) information functions.
	(5) The main objective of the Adjudicator in performing its functions is to protect the natural environment and communities impacted by the construction and operation of Phase 1 of High Speed 2.
	(6) The Adjudicator is to perform its functions for the general purpose of securing—
	(a) the minimisation of adverse impacts on communities and the natural environment situated in locations affected by the construction or operation of Phase 1 of HS2,
	(b) the provision of additional mitigation measures in the event the environmental impacts of the operation of HS2 are worse than as set out in the environmental statement prepared in accordance with section 66(4).”
	New clause 9—Matters to which the Adjudicator must have regard—
	“(1) In performing its functions the Adjudicator must have regard to—
	(a) the views expressed by or on behalf of the members of the public or organisations about the environmental impacts of constructing Phase One of HS2,
	(b) the views expressed by people affected by the construction and operation of Phase One of HS2,
	(c) the views expressed by local authorities about the impact of constructing and operating Phase One of HS2 in their areas,
	(d) the need to protect the natural environment and minimise environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of Phase One of HS2,
	(e) the need to ensure that any action by the Adjudicator in relation to its areas of responsibility is proportionate to the risks against which it would afford safeguards and is targeted only where it is needed,
	(f) any developments in approaches to monitoring and mitigating environmental impacts arising from the construction or operation of Phase One of HS2,
	(g) best practice among persons performing functions comparable to those of the Adjudicator (including the principles under which regulatory action should be transparent, accountable and consistent).
	(2) In performing its functions the Adjudicator must also have regard to such aspects of government policy as the Secretary of State may direct.”
	New clause 10—Statement on stakeholder involvement—
	“(1) The Adjudicator must publish a statement describing how it proposes to—
	(a) discharge its oversight requirements to ensure environmental outcomes reflect the forecasts set out in the environmental statement referenced in section 66(4),
	(b) promote engagement and discussion with the nominated undertaker and impacted communities concerning adequate levels of mitigation,
	(c) ensure that proper regard is had to views expressed by non-government organisations and local authorities concerning the environmental impacts arising from the construction and operation of Phase One of High Speed 2,
	(d) arrange for accurate regular reporting of environmental impacts arising from the construction of the scheduled works and operation of Phase One of High Speed 2.
	(2) The Adjudicator may from time to time revise the statement and must publish any revised statement.
	(3) Before publishing the statement (or any revised) statement the Adjudicator must consult such persons it considers appropriate.”
	New clause 11—Compliance with requirements—
	“(1) The Adjudicator will keep under review compliance by HS2 Ltd, the nominated undertaker and its contractors with the standards detailed in the environmental statement, Environmental Minimum Requirements and the Code of Construction Practice and the assurances and undertakings provided by the Secretary of State on HS2 and Information Papers prepared by HS2 Ltd (collectively the “environmental documents”).
	(2) If it appears to the Adjudicator that any person has failed or is likely to fail to comply with any requirements for which he is responsible set out in the environmental documents relating to the construction or operation of Phase One of High Speed 2, the Adjudicator (hereinafter referred to in this section as the “relevant requirements”) may address to that person an enforcement notice.
	(3) An enforcement notice comes into effect 36 hours after it is published on the website of the Adjudicator.
	(4) The Adjudicator must also transmit an electronic version to HS2 Ltd, any nominated undertaker or contractor to the aforementioned, or local authority who has supplied to the Adjudicator an email address for this purpose.
	(5) An enforcement notice must also be placed on a hard copy register maintained at such a location as the Adjudicator may determine.
	(6) An enforcement notice is a notice in writing—
	(a) specifying the matters which appears to the Adjudicator to constitute a failure to comply with the relevant requirements set out in the environmental documents, and
	(b) prohibiting the recurrence or occurrence of those matters and requiring the person to whom it is addressed to carry out any specified works or take any steps which the Adjudicator considers necessary to ensure compliance with the relevant requirements detailed in the environmental documents.
	(7) Where any person suffers loss or damage as a result of any matter specified in an enforcement notice, whether that loss or damage occurs before or after the service of the enforcement notice, he may recover damages for that loss or damage in a civil court from the person on whom the enforcement notice was served
	(8) It shall be a defence to any claim under subsection (7) above to prove that the matters alleged to constitute non compliance have not occurred or that they do not constitute non compliance with the relevant requirements
	(9) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of an enforcement notice he shall be guilty of an offence.
	(10) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine.
	(11) It shall be a defence to any criminal proceedings under subsection (9) claim to prove that—
	(a) the matters alleged to constitute non compliance have not occurred,
	(b) that they do not constitute non compliance with the relevant requirements or that any required works or steps were not necessary to achieve compliance with the relevant requirements or
	(c) that despite due diligence he was unaware of the provision of the notice.
	(12) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
	New clause 12—Inspections and studies—
	“(1) The Adjudicator may for the purposes of its regulatory functions carry out inspections of—
	(a) the carrying on of the Scheduled Works, or
	(b) the operation of any train travelling on Phase One of HS2.
	(2) The Adjudicator may undertake or promote comparative or other studies designed to enable it to make recommendations—
	(a) for improving sustainability and effectiveness in any activity mentioned in subsection (3), or
	(b) for improving the management of environmental outcomes arising from the operation of Phase One of HS2.
	(3) Those activities are—
	(a) the undertaking of construction activity by HS2 Ltd or a nominated undertaker,
	(b) the making of arrangements by HS2 Ltd or a nominated undertaker for the purpose of environmental mitigation.
	(4) The Adjudicator may also undertake or promote studies designed to enable it to prepare reports as to the impact of—
	(a) the operation of any particular statutory provisions, or
	(b) any directions or guidance given by a Minister of the Crown (whether pursuant to any such provisions or otherwise),
	on economy, efficiency and effectiveness in an activity mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b).
	(5) The Adjudicator must undertake or promote a study falling within subsection (2) or (4) if the Secretary of State so requests.
	(6) The Adjudicator must publish—
	(a) any recommendations made by it under subsection (2) and
	(b) the result of any studies undertaken or promoted under that section.
	(7) The Secretary of State may, after consulting the Adjudicator, by regulations make provisions as to the procedure to be followed in respect of the making of representatives to the Adjudicator before the publication under subsection (2) of any recommendations or the result of any studies.”
	New clause 13—Power to require documents, information returns etc.—
	“(1) The Adjudicator may require any person mentioned in subsection (2) to provide it with any information, documents, records or other items which the Adjudicator considers it necessary or expedient to have for the purposes of any of its regulatory functions.
	(2) The persons are—
	(a) HS2 Limited,
	(b) a nominated undertaker,
	(c) any contractor appointed by HS2 Limited or a nominated undertaker.
	(3) The power in subsection (1) to require the provision of information, documents or records includes, in relation to information, documents or records kept by means of a computer, power to require the provision of the information, documents or records in legible form.
	(4) The Adjudicator may require a nominated undertaker to make a return to the Adjudicator at such intervals as may be prescribed.
	(5) Provision may be made in such requirements as to the contents of the return and the period in respect of which and date by which it is to be made.”
	New clause 14—Information and advice—
	“(1) The Adjudicator must keep the Secretary of State informed about the following matters—
	(a) the environmental impact of constructing Phase 1 of HS2 and whether such impacts reflect the forecasts detailed in the Environmental Statement;
	(b) the impact on communities and the natural environment arising from the construction and operation of HS2;
	(c) the carrying on of regulated activities.
	(2) The Adjudicator may at any time give the Secretary of State advice on anything connected with those matters.
	(3) When requested to do so by the Secretary of State, the Adjudicator must give the Secretary of State such advice or information in connection with a matter mentioned in subsection (1) as may be specified in the request.”
	New clause 15—Provision of copies of registers—
	“(1) Subject to subsection (3), the Adjudicator must secure that copies of any register kept for the purposes of this Act are available at its offices for inspection at all reasonable times by any person.
	(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), any person who asks the Adjudicator for a copy of, or an extract from, a register kept for the purposes of this Chapter is entitled to have one.
	(3) Regulations may provide that subsections (1) and (2) do not apply—
	(a) in such circumstances as may be prescribed, or
	(b) to such parts of a register as may be prescribed.
	(4) A fee determined by the Adjudicator is payable for the copy or extract except—
	(a) in prescribed circumstances, or
	(b) in any case where the Adjudicator considers it appropriate to provide the copy or extract free of charge.”
	New clause 16—Speed and Noise Limitation—
	“(1) No person shall drive or cause or permit any train to proceed at a speed greater than 300 km/h on track forming part of Phase One of High Speed 2 except to the extent that the maximum peak noise level arising from train passage, when measured according to a procedure defined by the Secretary of State on the basis of representative train passages and locations, does not exceed 60dBA at any point further than 200m from the centre line of the railway.
	(2) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) he shall be guilty of an offence.
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine.
	(4) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
	New clause 17—Prohibition of entry of designated vehicles in designated areas—
	“(1) No person shall for the purposes of the exercise of powers granted under sections 1 and 2 drive or cause or permit a vehicle of a designated class to enter a designated area, where “designated class” and “designated area” are as defined in [Schedule: Designated Areas and Classes for Vehicles].
	(2) If any person fails to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) he shall be guilty of an offence.
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding £20,000 and on conviction on indictment to a fine.
	(4) Where an offence under any provision of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
	New clause 22—Construction of an integrated Euston Station—
	“(1) The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to take reasonable steps to develop integrated and comprehensive design and construction plans for Euston Station that include integration with other Euston Schemes.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “reasonable steps” mean, but are not limited to, the following measures—
	(a) The nominated undertaker will seek to maximise, in so far as is reasonably practicable, the volume of excavated and construction material from the construction of the enlarged Euston Station and its approaches to be brought in and removed by rail;
	(b) The nominated undertaker will design an enlarged HS2 Euston Station having regard to all relevant parts of the Euston Area Plan and any other relevant Opportunity Area Frameworks or Guidance,
	(c) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in the Euston Strategic Board, which shall comprise representatives from the Department for Transport, HS2 Limited, the London Borough of Camden, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, and in any successor or additional future governance arrangements which may be agreed between the London Borough of Camden, and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London from time to time,
	(d) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board which shall have the same membership as specified in subsection (2)(c), with the addition of Network Rail and any successor network and station operators, designated under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 and having responsibility for Euston Main Line Station or rail tracks that connect to that station,
	(e) The Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board will advise the Secretary of State on the delivery of an integrated and comprehensive design for the enlarged Euston Station and other Euston Schemes, alongside other duties which may be set out in its Terms of Reference which may be updated from time to time;
	(f) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Integrated Programme Board, the membership of which shall include the organisations specified in subsection (2)(b);
	(g) The Euston Integrated Programme Board shall have responsibility for managing the integration of the nominated undertaker’s Euston Station design and construction work plans with proposals for other Euston Schemes;
	(h) The nominated undertaker will be required to take all reasonable steps to maintain public access to Euston Station and through construction sites that are established for Phase One purposes, including for cyclists and pedestrians;
	(i) Where it is not reasonably practicable to maintain public access under subsection (2)(h), the nominated undertaker shall identify alternative measures to maintain public access and implement them where it is reasonable;
	(j) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Station Design Panel and use reasonable endeavours to agree the chairperson and other members jointly with Camden London Borough Council, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority, and Network Rail or any successor network operator as defined in subsection (2)(d);
	(k) The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to have regard to all recommendations made by the Euston Station Design Panel regarding the nominated undertaker’s ongoing design work for Euston Station,
	(l) If requested to do so by the Euston Station Design Panel, the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to notify Camden London Borough Council and the Greater London Authority of the full reasons for failing to incorporate into its design work any changes recommended by the Euston Station Design Panel,
	(m) The nominated undertaker will make provision for ongoing community engagement during the construction works for the enlarged Euston Station,
	(n) Details of the funding expected to be required to rebuild Euston Main Line Station shall be set out when the Secretary of State’s duties are fulfilled under paragraph 1(D)(1) of Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993 in respect of the review periods preceding the rebuild of Euston Main Line Station and the review periods during which the rebuild of Euston Main Line Station is expected to take place,
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “Euston Schemes” shall be taken to mean—
	(a) The enlarged Euston Station as referred to in Schedule 1 to this Act,
	(b) The rebuild of the Euston Main Line Station,
	(c) Over site development and related development opportunities above the Euston Station and tracks in line with the Euston Area Plan; and
	(d) Additional proposals for new subterranean railways that may be introduced by the Greater London Authority or Transport for London during the Phase One construction period.
	(4) Nothing in this section shall override other limitations imposed by this Act.”
	New clause 23—Noise and visual mitigation at Mixbury, Oxfordshire—
	“(1) The Secretary of State shall require the nominated undertaker to construct, at Mixbury in Oxfordshire, along the west side of the railway’s Hollow Barn embankment, a noise barrier of height between 1.4 metres and 2 metres and of equivalent specification to the noise barrier to be constructed at Westbury.
	(2) The area between the Hollow Barn embankment and bridleway no. 303/4 shall be planted with tree screening such that within five years of construction there shall be a tree height adjacent to the embankment of at least 5 metres.”
	New clause 24—Benefit/cost review of potential Wardington bypass—
	“(1) The Secretary of State shall commission a review of the potential benefits of constructing a road bypass on the A361 at Wardington in Oxfordshire.
	(2) The review shall have regard to possible alleviation of HS2 construction traffic and other traffic, and to other alternatives for such alleviation.
	(3) The review shall include estimates of the costs of construction of a bypass and other relevant costs.
	(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the outcome of the review before both Houses of Parliament.
	(a) within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent; and
	(b) before commencement of any HS2 construction works necessitating more than 24 heavy goods vehicle movements through Wardington, per day.”
	New clause 25—Protection of bridleways in Oxfordshire—
	“(1) The nominated undertaker shall take all reasonably practicable steps:
	(a) to keep open bridleways in the vicinity of the railway and associated construction works in Oxfordshire; and
	(b) to ensure that such bridleways are safely useable for their intended purposes.
	(2) Where closure of a bridleway cannot be avoided, the nominated undertaker shall take all reasonably practicable steps:
	(a) to keep the duration of the closure to a minimum; and
	(b) to provide safe alternative routes on alignments which so far as reasonably practicable avoid proximity to construction works.
	(3) Bridleways shall be screened from construction works with appropriately designed screening of a suitable height.
	(4) The nominated undertaker shall consult with users of bridleways on suitable ways to implement the duties set forth in subsections (1) to (3).”
	New clause 28—Kingsbury railhead special management zone—
	“(1) There shall be a special management zone for the area of the Kingsbury railhead, which shall include the areas falling under the aegis of the Kingsbury, Lea Marston, Curdworth, Wishaw and Middleton parish councils and north Warwickshire as a whole.
	(2) The nominated undertaker will employ a community engagement team for the special management zone, which shall have responsibility for managing community relations, including the referral, escalation, monitoring and resolution of complaints and the provision of timely information about the status of complaints.
	(3) The community engagement team will arrange regular meetings of the nominated undertaker, lead contractors, local authorities and local community representatives to discuss construction issues and forthcoming programmes of work.
	(4) The community engagement team shall provide advice on support mechanisms and shall implement the HS2 stakeholder engagement framework.
	(5) The community engagement team will be staffed by appropriately experienced personnel and will include—
	(a) a single point of contact for local authorities; and
	(b) named individual points of contact for property owners affected by construction.
	(6) Implementation and enforcement of the Code of Construction Practice within the Special Management Zone will be the responsibility of a senior manager within the community engagement team.
	(7) The community engagement team will coordinate responses to the construction of Phase One alongside planning of Phase Two.”
	New clause 29—Kingsbury railhead restoration—
	“The Secretary of State must require the nominated undertaker, on completion of Phase One construction, to restore the land and environment at and in the vicinity of the Kingsbury railhead to its state as at the date of Royal Assent to this Act, notwithstanding that mitigation measures to be implemented during construction will include earthworks and bunding.”
	New clause 31—Mitigation in environs of Old Oak Common—
	“(1) Conservation areas in the vicinity of Old Oak Common shall be the subject of special consultation whose objective shall be to mitigate the long-term effects of construction in the area.
	(2) The nominated undertaker will use reasonable endeavours to situate heavy goods vehicle entrances to the Old Oak Common construction site as far from residential dwellings in Stephenson Street, Wells House Road and Midland Terrace as is reasonably practicable.”
	New clause 34—Mitigation of construction impacts at Canterbury Works vent shaft—
	“(1) Commencement of construction work at the Canterbury Works vent shaft construction site shall be subject to there being already in place before construction a traffic management scheme.
	(2) The traffic management scheme shall include a requirement that construction on the Canterbury Works site does not entail more than 100 individual heavy duty vehicle trips per day (50 arriving and 50 departing).
	(3) It shall be a further requirement of the traffic management plan that trips to be made by heavy duty vehicles will avoid the beginning and end of the school day.
	(4) The nominated undertaker will require that all heavy duty vehicles entering or employed within the London low emission zones be powered by Euro VI (or lower emission) engines.
	(5) The nominated undertaker will undertake regular environmental assessments of dust levels on the premises of St Mary’s Catholic Primary School, particularly in recreational areas such as the playground.
	(6) The nominated undertaker will consider on a monthly basis where further measures at source may be required in order to reduce the effects of pollution, and publish its findings.
	(7) The Secretary of State will provide the local authorities in the area of the Canterbury Works with the funds they deem necessary for additional road safety measures to ensure children’s safety during construction.
	(8) During construction, the nominated undertaker and its contractors must maintain a construction operations website and a telephone helpline staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to handle enquiries from the general public and local business regarding construction activities.
	(9) A log shall be kept of all complaints relating to HS2 construction sites, whether those complaints are made to HS2, local authorities or the police, and all complaints, with HS2’s response and action taken in response, should be published prominently on HS2’s website.
	(10) Where there is a pattern of repeated infringement of construction site conditions, HS2 will pay compensation to all those affected.
	(11) Information regarding vent shaft construction effects and progress must be made clear through advertisements, on social media, email alerts, local radio and newspapers.
	(12) Information services must be provided in languages appropriate to the needs of the area, using the results of a demographic survey.”
	This new clause seeks to make mitigate the effects of construction at the Canterbury Works site, in particular in relation to air quality and child health and safety.
	New clause 35—Mitigation of construction impacts at Alexandra Place—
	“(1) The nominated undertaker will ensure that any HS2-related construction at the Alexandra Place vent shaft construction site complies with existing air pollution legislation.
	(2) The nominated undertaker will explore the possibility of using Loudoun Road for the loading and unloading of heavy duty vehicles and of moving materials by rail on tracks running alongside the proposed vent shaft site and shall implement both possibilities to the full extent possible, with a preference for movement by rail.”
	New schedule 1—Adjudicator: Status and Funding—
	“1 The Adjudicator shall be a body corporate.
	2 (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the Adjudicator shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or any enjoying any status immunity or privilege of the Crown.
	(2) The members of the Adjudicator and of their staff shall not be regarded as civil servants and the Adjudicator’s property shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.
	(3) In relation to any matter as respects which the Adjudicator act by virtue of a direction under Section 1.3 the Adjudicator shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities and exemptions as those enjoyed in relation to that matter by the Secretary of State for Transport.
	(4) Subject to the provisions of any enactment, the Adjudicator shall not be exempt from any tax, duty, rate, levy or other charge whatever (whether general or local).
	(5) The Adjudicator shall receive such funds from the Secretary of State as he considers that it needs to perform its functions expeditiously and efficiently.
	Membership
	3 (1) The Adjudicator shall consist of not less than 8 and not more than 17 members.
	(2) The members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, who shall appoint one of them to be chairman and may appoint another of them to be deputy chairman.
	(3) In appointing any member, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the members as a whole having knowledge or experience of all the following, namely railway construction and operation, the preservation of cultural heritage, town and country planning, ecology, arboriculture, landscape, and air quality.
	(4) In appointing members, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of at least one of them having knowledge of local government (as well as knowledge or experience of one or more of the subjects mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)).
	(5) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, a chairman, deputy chairman or other member shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of his appointment, but no member shall be appointed for a period of more than 5 years.
	(6) A chairman, deputy chairman or member may resign his office by notice in writing addressed to the Secretary of State.
	(7) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that a member—
	(a) has been absent from meetings of the Adjudicator for a period longer than 3 consecutive months without the consent of the Adjudicator, or
	(b) has become bankrupt or has made an arrangement with his creditors, or
	(c) is incapacitated by physical or mental illness, or
	(d) is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member,
	the Secretary of State may remove him from his office
	(8) If a chairman or deputy chairman ceases to be a member he shall also cease to be chairman or deputy chairman; and if a chairman or deputy chairman ceases to be chairman or deputy chairman he shall also cease to be a member.
	(9) A person who ceases to be a member, otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (7), or ceases to be chairman or deputy chairman, shall be eligible for re-appointment.
	Staff
	4 (1) There shall be a chief officer of the Adjudicator who shall be appointed by the Adjudicator with the approval of the Secretary of State.
	(2) The chief officer shall be responsible to the Adjudicator for the general exercise of the Adjudicator’s functions and may, subject to the directions of the Adjudicator, exercise all the powers of the Adjudicator either himself or through nominated staff members.
	(3) The Adjudicator may appoint such other employees as the Adjudicator thinks fit.
	(4) The Adjudicator shall pay to their employees such remuneration and allowances as the Adjudicator may determine.
	(5) The employees shall be appointed on such other terms and conditions as the Adjudicator may determine.
	(6) The Adjudicator may pay such pensions, allowances or gratuities as they may determine to or in respect of any of their employees, make such payments as they may determine towards the provision of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of their employees or provide and maintain such schemes as they may determine (whether contributory or not) for the payment of pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any of their employees.
	(7) The references in sub-paragraph (6) to pensions, allowances or gratuities to or in respect of any employees include references to pensions, allowances or gratuities by way of compensation to or in respect of employees who suffer loss of office or employment.
	(8) A determination under sub-paragraph (4), (5) or (6) is ineffective unless made with the approval of the Secretary of State given with the Treasury’s consent.
	(9) The Adjudicator shall make, not later than such date as the Secretary of State may determine, an offer of employment by the Adjudicator to each person employed in the civil service of the State whose name is notified to the Adjudicator by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
	(10) The terms of the offer shall be such that they are, taken as a whole, not less favourable to the person to whom the offer is made than the terms on which he is employed on the date on which the offer is made.
	(11) In determining whether the terms of the offer are more or less favourable to that person than those enjoyed by him on the date of the offer no account shall be taken of the fact that employment with the Adjudicator is not employment in the service of the Crown.
	(12) An offer made in pursuance of this paragraph shall not be revocable during the period of 3 months beginning with the date on which it is made.
	(13) Where a person becomes an employee of the Adjudicator in consequence of this paragraph, then, for the purposes of his period of employment in the civil service of the State shall count as a period of employment by the Adjudicator and the change of employment shall not break the continuity of the period of employment.
	(14) Any dispute arising under this paragraph as to whether or not the terms of any employment offered by the Adjudicator are, taken as a whole, less favourable than those applying to a person’s employment in the civil service of the State shall be referred to and determined by an employment tribunal.
	(15) An employment tribunal shall not consider a complaint whereby a dispute mentioned in sub-paragraph (6) is referred to it unless the complaint is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the date of the offer of employment or within such further period as the tribunal considers reasonable in a case where it is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to be presented before the end of the period of 3 months.
	(16) An appeal shall lie to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on a question of law arising from any decision of, or arising in proceedings before, an employment tribunal under this paragraph; and no appeal shall lie except to the Employment Appeal Tribunal from any decision of an employment tribunal under this paragraph.
	Proceedings
	5 Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, the Adjudicator may regulate their own procedure (including quorum).
	6 (1) A member of the Adjudicator who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in a contract made or proposed to be made by the Adjudicator or by HS2 Limited or by any Nominated Undertaker appointed by the Secretary of State, or in any other matter which falls to be considered by the Adjudicator, shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Adjudicator.
	(2) The disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
	(3) A member shall not—
	(a) where a contract in which the member is interested is under consideration, take part in the deliberations on or decision about the contract; and
	(b) where any other matter in which the member is interested is under consideration, take part in the deliberations on or decision about the matter if the Adjudicator decide that the member’s interest might prejudicially affect his consideration of the matter.
	(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, a notice given by a member at a meeting of the Adjudicator to the effect that he is a member of a specified body corporate or firm and is to be regarded as interested in any contract which is made with the body corporate or firm after the date of the notice, and in any other matter concerning the body corporate or firm which falls to be considered after that date, shall be a sufficient disclosure of his interest.
	(5) A member need not attend in person at a meeting of the Adjudicator in order to make a disclosure which he is required to make under this paragraph if he takes reasonable steps to secure that the disclosure is made by a notice which is taken into consideration and read at such a meeting.
	(6) The validity of any proceedings of the Adjudicator shall not be affected by any vacancy among the members, or by any defect in the appointment of any person as a member or chairman or deputy chairman, or by a failure to comply with paragraph 6.
	Committees
	7 (1) The Adjudicator shall constitute at least one committee to advise them on ecology and at least one to advise them on compliance by HS2 Ltd with its obligations under the Environmental Statement and at least one to advise them on the efficacy of such compensation schemes which are implemented by HS2 Ltd and the Department for Transport and may constitute other committees to advise them on those or other aspects of their functions.
	(2) The Adjudicator may include as members of committees persons who are not members of the Adjudicator.
	(3) The Adjudicator may regulate the proceedings (including quorum) of committees.
	(4) The Adjudicator may pay to the members of any committee such reasonable allowances in respect of expenses or loss of remuneration as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.
	Instruments
	8 (1) The fixing of the seal of the Adjudicator shall be authenticated by the signature of the chairman of or some other person authorised either generally or specially by the Adjudicator to act for that purpose.
	(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the seal of the Adjudicator, or to be signed on the Adjudicator’s behalf, shall be received in evidence and, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to be so executed or signed.
	Members Remuneration
	9 (1) The Adjudicator shall pay to members of the Adjudicator such remuneration and such allowances in respect of expenses as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.
	(2) In the case of any such member or past member of the Adjudicator as the Secretary of State may with the Treasury’s approval determine, the Adjudicator shall pay such pension, allowance or gratuity to or in respect of him, or make such payment towards the provision of such a pension, allowance or gratuity, as the Secretary of State may so determine.
	(3) Where a person ceases to be a member of the Adjudicator, and it appears to the Secretary of State that there are special circumstances which make it right for that person to receive compensation, the Secretary of State may, with the Treasury’s approval, direct the Adjudicator to make to that person a payment of such amount as the Secretary of State may determine with the Treasury’s approval.
	Accounts
	10 (1) The Adjudicator shall keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them.
	(2) The Adjudicator shall prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.
	(3) The statement shall give a true and fair view of the state of the Adjudicator’s affairs at the end of the financial year and of the Adjudicator’s income and expenditure in the financial year.
	(4) The statement shall—
	(a) be prepared within such period as the Secretary of State may direct; and
	(b) comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State with the Treasury’s consent as to the information to be contained in the statement, the manner in which the information is to be presented or the methods and principles according to which the statement is to be prepared.
	(5) The accounts in respect of each financial year ending on or before 31st March 2018 (including any statement of accounts in respect of each such financial year prepared under this paragraph) shall be audited by persons appointed in respect of each financial year by the Secretary of State.
	(6) No person shall be appointed auditor under this paragraph unless he is—
	(a) eligible for appointment as a statutory auditor under Part 42 of the Companies Act 2006; or
	(b) a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy; but a firm may be so appointed if each of its members is qualified to be so appointed.
	(7) Where the Adjudicator has prepared a statement of accounts in respect of a financial year ending on or after 31st March 2016, it must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates, send a copy of the statement to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
	(8) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on any statement of accounts sent to him under sub-paragraph (7).
	(9) In this paragraph “financial year” means the period commencing with the day of the Adjudicator’s establishment and ending with the second 31 March following that day, and each successive period of 12 months.
	Information
	11 (1) The Adjudicator shall make to the Secretary of State, as soon as may be practicable after the end of each financial year, a report on the exercise of their functions since the last report was made or (in the case of the first) since the Adjudicator’s establishment.
	(2) Each report shall include a copy of the statement of accounts prepared and audited under paragraph 11 in respect of the financial year and, where the statement has been audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, a copy of his report on it.
	(3) Each report of the Adjudicator shall include a statement of action taken by the Adjudicator concerning—
	(a) The compliance by HS2 Ltd with the commitments made in the Phase 1 Environmental Statement,
	(b) The adequacy of the mitigation measures undertaken by HS2 Limited and any Nominated Undertaker concerning construction of the line,
	(c) Recommendations concerning any additional mitigation measures required to ensure adequate environmental mitigation,
	(d) The assessment of reasonable practicability undertaken by the nominated undertaker,
	(e) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of each report of the Adjudicator before each House of Parliament,
	(f) As soon as may be after receiving any report made by the auditors on any accounts audited under paragraph 12 or, as the case may be, made by the Comptroller and Auditor General on any statement of accounts prepared under that paragraph, the Adjudicator shall send a copy of the report to the Secretary of State,
	(g) The Adjudicator shall furnish the Secretary of State with such information relating to their property and the discharge and proposed discharge of their functions as he may require, and for that purpose they shall permit any person authorised by him to inspect and make copies of any accounts or other documents of the Adjudicator and shall give such explanation of them as that person or the Secretary of State may require and
	(h) In this paragraph “financial year” has the same meaning as in paragraph 10.
	House of Commons disqualification
	12 (1) In Part III of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (disqualifying offices), there shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order—
	(2) “Any member, in receipt of remuneration, of the Adjudicator.””
	New schedule 2—Designated areas and classes for vehicles (Specific)—
	“Designated area
	The A452 road, Balsall Common, between its junction with Windmill Lane and the bridge over the Rugby and Birmingham railway.
	Designated class
	A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes.
	Designated area
	Waste Lane, Balsall Common, between its junction with the A452 and the eastern junction with Old Waste Lane.
	Designated class
	A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes.
	Designated area
	The Kenilworth Greenway.
	Designated class
	Any vehicle except a vehicle crossing from one side of the designated area to a point immediately opposite.”
	New schedule 3—Designated areas and classes for vehicles (Generic)—
	“Any designated areas
	The designated area or areas in which a designated class or designated classes of vehicles are to be expressly prohibited shall be defined by the Secretary of State after consultation with local interested parties. They shall be contained in regulations to be made by statutory instrument, which shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	Any designated class
	A vehicle exceeding 8 tonnes, unless otherwise defined in relation to a particular designated area in regulations to be issued by the Secretary of State as above.”
	Amendment 1, in clause 1, page1,line4, after “1,” insert
	“subject to subsections 1A, 1D, 1G, 1I, 1O and 1T”
	This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and ensure that any railway within the AONB be built in a fully-bored tunnel.
	Amendment 2,page1,line6, at end insert—
	“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to construct a surface railway route within the boundaries of The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Chilterns AONB).
	(1B) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 and within the boundaries of the Chilterns AONB shall be built as an extension to the bored tunnel in this area, which is planned through the works specified in Schedule 1 of this Act.
	(1C) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
	This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and ensure that any railway within the AONB be built in a fully-bored tunnel.
	Amendment 3,page1,line6, at end insert—
	“(1D) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to build a surface railway route within the boundaries of The Chilterns Area of Natural Beauty (Chilterns AONB).
	(1E) To fulfil railway construction requirements for Phase One of High Speed 2 within this area, the nominated undertaker shall pursue an extension of the bored tunnel which is planned through works specified in Schedule 1, via a Transport and Works Act order as provided for in section 52 of this Act, or via such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.
	(1F) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
	This amendment seeks to prevent any surface railway route through The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and require the nominated undertaker to pursue an extension of the existing bored tunnel outside of this legislation.
	Amendment 14,page1,line6, at end insert—
	“(1G) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 and within the boundaries of the Chilterns AONB shall, between South Heath and Leather Lane, east of the A413 Aylesbury Road in Buckinghamshire, be built within bored tunnel.
	(1H) The works referred to in subsection (1G) shall be pursued by means of a Transport and Works Act order or such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.
	(1I) In this section, the Chilterns AONB shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty designated within the Chilterns under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
	This amendment would seek to provide partial further protection of the Chilterns AONB by extending the bored tunnel northward from South Heath for a further mile.
	Amendment 5,page1,line6, at end insert—
	“(1I) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Clause, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of such works has been completed.
	(1J) The cost benefit analysis must include, but shall not be restricted to, an assessment of the environmental impacts of Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 and connected construction works in The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
	(1K) The cost benefit analysis shall be undertaken by a review panel, the membership of which must include, but shall not be restricted to, representatives from—
	(a) Buckinghamshire County Council,
	(b) Chiltern District Council,
	(c) Aylesbury Vale District Council,
	(d) Wycombe District Council,
	(e) The Chilterns Conservation Board,
	(f) Natural England,
	(g) Environment Agency,
	(h) Key community groups,
	(i) HS2 Ltd, and
	(j) The Department for Transport.
	The panel shall be funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.
	(1L) Within twelve weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force the Panel must report its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State.
	(1M) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must—
	(a) make publicly available the reasons for doing so, and
	(b) demonstrate how any environmental cost that would have been addressed by the rejected recommendation will otherwise be mitigated.
	(1N) Any deviation from works specified in this Schedule required as a result of the panel’s recommendations shall be pursued via a Transport and Works Act order, as provided for in section 52 of this Act, or via such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.”
	This amendment seeks to make progress of any construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of an environmental cost benefit analysis.
	Amendment 6,page1,line6, at end insert—
	“(1O) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Schedule, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail
	2, until a full reassessment of tunnelling methodology as applied to an extended bored tunnel under The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, has been completed.
	(1P) The reassessment shall be conducted by a panel of experts and other relevant parties, to be appointed, funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.
	(1Q) Within twelve weeks of this Act coming into force, the panel must report its conclusions and any recommendations to HS2 and the Secretary of State.
	(1R) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must—
	(a) make publicly available the reasons for doing so, and
	(b) provide a cost benefit analysis of any alternative proposal to that recommended by the panel.
	(1S) Any deviation from works specified in this Schedule required as a result of the panel’s recommendations shall be pursued through a Transport and Works Act order, as provided for in section 52 of this Act or such other procedure as shall ensure an opportunity for appropriate public participation and objection.”
	This amendment would make progress of any works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of a reassessment of tunnelling methodology for an extended bored tunnel under part of The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
	Amendment 7,page1,line6, at end insert—
	“(1T) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in this Schedule, or any other construction works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2, until a full assessment of traffic management requirements has been completed.
	(1U) The assessment shall be conducted by a panel of experts and other relevant parties, to be appointed, funded and facilitated by HS2 Ltd.
	(1V) Within sixteen weeks of this Act coming into force the panel must report its conclusions to the Secretary of State. The report must include but shall not be limited to—
	(a) a full assessment of traffic management requirements consequential to any works specified in this Schedule, and
	(b) detailed proposals outlining how such requirements shall be addressed.”
	This amendment would make progress of any works connected to Phase One of High Speed Rail 2 conditional on the completion of an assessment of traffic management requirements and implementation of solutions to address such requirements.
	Amendment 8,page1,line6, at end insert—
	“(1A) In exercising the powers in this Bill, the nominated undertaker shall have regard to the desirability of minimising the number of gantries to be installed to provide power to the railway, in particular in areas of outstanding natural beauty designated by statute and in other areas of particularly high environmental value and sensitivity, and shall consult with local communities in designing plans for gantry installation.”
	Amendment 11,page1,line6, at end insert—
	“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers granted under section 1 to construct a surface railway route between Burton Green, Warwickshire, and Mercote Hall Lane east of Hampton-in-Arden, Solihull.
	(1B) Any railway constructed as part of Phase One of High Speed 2 between Burton Green, Warwickshire, and Mercote Hall Lane east of Hampton-in-Arden, Solihull, shall be built as an extension to the tunnel at Burton Green, which is planned through the works specified in Schedule 1 of this Act.”
	Amendment 17,page1,line6, at end insert—
	“(1A) The nominated undertaker shall not exercise powers to commence any works specified in schedule 1 relating to Canterbury Works in Brent, London until a cost benefit analysis of the environmental impacts of such works has been completed.
	(1B) The cost benefit analysis shall be undertaken by a review panel, the membership of which must include, but shall not be restricted to, representatives from—
	(a) HS2 Ltd;
	(b) Department for Transport;
	(c) Brent Council;
	(d) Environment Agency; and
	(e) Key community groups
	(1C) The panel shall be funded and facilitated by the nominated undertaker.
	(1D) Within twenty weeks after the date on which this Act comes into force, the panel must report its conclusions and recommendations to the Secretary of State.
	(1E) If the Secretary of State rejects any recommendation made by the panel he must make publicly available the reasons for doing so and must demonstrate how any environmental cost that would have been addressed by the rejected recommendation will otherwise be mitigated.”
	This amendment seeks to make construction at the Canterbury Works site subject to an environmental cost benefit analysis.
	Amendment 12,in clause 20, page9,line6, at end insert—
	“(1A) The deemed planning permissions in subsection (1) shall be made subject to the approval of the external appearance of the works by the relevant parish or town council,
	(1B) The approval of the external appearance referred to in subsection (1A) shall not be withheld unreasonably, and shall be determined by the relevant parish or town council within four weeks of the submission by the nominated undertaker of full details of the external appearance of the proposed works to the proper officer of the council.”
	Amendment 16, in clause 29,page12,line29, at end insert—
	“(2) Any reconfiguration of utilities taking place pursuant to this Bill at Wormwood Scrubs Common will be undertaken with regard to the value of Wormwood Scrubs Common as an amenity, and shall not involve the creation of any permanent pedestrian or vehicular access.”
	Amendment 9,in clause 31, page13,line30, at end insert—
	“(5A) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of Royal Assent, consult on and prepare plans for the undergrounding of all overhead power lines over a height of 15m in areas of particularly high environmental value or sensitivity, and shall within one year thereafter introduce legislation or alternative regulatory measures (to the extent such measures are required) to permit such undergrounding to take place by the end of 2020.”
	This amendment is intended to compensate for the physical effects of the railway in certain areas by removing existing obtrusive and unappealing infrastructure.
	Amendment 10,page13,line30, at end insert—
	“(5A) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of Royal Assent, consult on and prepare plans for the undergrounding of all overhead power lines in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty over a height of 15m, and shall within one year thereafter introduce legislation or alternative regulatory measures (to the extent such measures are required) to permit such undergrounding to take place by the end of 2020.
	(5B) In this section, “Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty” shall mean the area of outstanding natural beauty in the Chilterns designated under section 82(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.”
	This amendment is intended to compensate for the physical effects of the railway in the Chilterns AONB by removing existing obtrusive and unappealing infrastructure.
	Amendment 13,in schedule 1, page79, leave out lines 47 to 50.

Cheryl Gillan: New clause 6 relates to the Chiltern review group. The Chiltern area of outstanding natural beauty, which has been a designated landscape for more than 50 years, is the only AONB affected by phase 1 of HS2. As it stands, 8.8 km of the AONB is still exposed to the line and remains untunnelled and above ground. It will be a permanent scar on the landscape, and the effects will be irreversible. A Chilterns AONB review group would provide local authorities and key stakeholders with the opportunity to identify greater measures of mitigation and work collaboratively with the promoter to ensure that this precious area was protected to the highest possible level during the construction and operation of the railway.
	When the project was first announced, I was assured that local people would have a chance to input their views and expertise into the plans for HS2, but, so far, those opportunities have been limited. This group of amendments would make sure that local people and councils had genuine influence over the future of their area, which will, I believe, be irretrievably damaged by HS2.
	New clause 7 concerns trees. When I petitioned the HS2 hybrid Bill Select Committee, one of my requests was to ensure that HS2 fulfilled the Government’s promise to plant and maintain 2 million trees. The trees that were planted following HS1 were not properly maintained, and, as a result, many of them died. I asked for an undertaking from HS2 to that effect, but that has not been forthcoming.

Greg Knight: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Is not new clause 7 actually defective? There does not appear to be any duty to replant trees that have died.

Cheryl Gillan: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point. He will notice that there are a large number of amendments on the Order Paper in my name. I have not had the advantage of parliamentary draftsmen; I have had only lawyers, friends and my own wits, with the Clerks of the House to fall back on. However, I think that as a probing amendment, new clause 7 will make its point.

Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem of trees and ancient woodland demonstrates not only a lack of commitment but a deep lack of understanding by HS2 on these environmental issues?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I remember considering the matter in a debate in Westminster Hall, which I believe he led. Like me, he is a passionate and long-term supporter of the Woodland Trust, which does valuable work to preserve our precious ancient woodland and to create more native woods.

Rebecca Pow: I was at the debate about ancient woodland to which my right hon. Friend referred. Does she agree that more ought to be done to try to protect those precious ancient woodland habitats? I understand the economic reasons, but what about the ancient woodland?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend has already made a name for herself in the House for defending our environment, and I hope that she long continues to do so. I agree with her entirely. The Woodland Trust wants ancient woodland to be removed from the “no net loss” calculation, and it is disappointed that HS2 has not done everything that it should or could do to avoid the loss of ancient woodland.

Barry Gardiner: I am sure that the right hon. Lady will acknowledge that when HS2’s original estimate of the amount of ancient woodland was reviewed by the Woodland Trust, that estimate was increased by 78%. It is appalling that the initial environmental survey conducted by HS2 did not record accurately the amount of ancient woodland involved.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman’s point about inaccurate assessments is, I am afraid, repeated throughout dealings with HS2. This is a particularly bad example. The Woodland Trust petitioned HS2 for a minimum planting ratio of 30:1 to compensate for the fact that irreplaceable habitats will be lost, and the planting of 2 million trees along the wider route is just the starting point. I would have hoped that that could be put in the Bill, which would have made the provision legally binding and ensured that at least some structured replanting and maintenance would take place.

Robert Goodwill: May I underline our commitment to no net environmental loss and our commitment to plant 2 million trees, which will be managed to the best arboricultural standards? One of the problems that we had with the assessment of ancient woodland was getting access to land to carry out such assessments, because some landowners would not grant us access. That will not be a problem with further phases, because we have taken those powers as part of the Bill.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I wish I could take it at face value.

Barry Gardiner: As I am sure the right hon. Lady agrees, the Minister’s assurance that there will be no net loss is not worth the air time it is given. Ancient woodland is, of course, as Natural England precisely characterise it, “irreplaceable”. The idea that there can be no net loss of something that is irreplaceable is simply a contradiction in terms.

Cheryl Gillan: The hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. Quite frankly, the fact that anybody actually says they would replace ancient woodland just shows the ignorance of some of the people dealing with this matter.

Robert Goodwill: rose—

Cheryl Gillan: The Minister is determined to get in again. As we have not heard a lot from him, I will give way.

Robert Goodwill: May I just make the point that translocation of ancient woodland soils is recognised by Natural England as an important mechanism for aiding the creation of ecologically valuable woodlands? If properly planned and undertaken, that can be an important element of compensatory measures, where the loss of ancient woodland is unavoidable.

Cheryl Gillan: I again thank the Minister for that clarification.

Victoria Prentis: I am very concerned about the protection of ancient pastureland. In one particularly egregious case in my constituency, HS2 Ltd suggested that it replace ancient woodland on ancient pastureland, which is even rarer and more valuable.

Dominic Grieve: rose—

Cheryl Gillan: I think my right hon. and learned Friend has had a similar experience.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those managing pastureland to produce wild flowers were told that, after years of husbandry, somebody was going to stick a wood on it. HS2’s reaction was simply to find a bit of land on which to stick some trees.

Cheryl Gillan: I make no comment. That speaks for itself.

Barry Gardiner: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Cheryl Gillan: I think I have given way enough to the hon. Gentleman. I want to make some progress because so many Members want to speak on this group of amendments, and we have so little time.
	I have tabled new clauses, drafted by a very senior lawyer, on a proposal that is of particular importance to everybody—the adjudicator. The proposal is of great importance and would improve the project immeasurably. New clause 8 provides for an independent regulatory body regularly to review and monitor progress during construction, and to hold HS2 to account in delivering what has been promised in environmental and other mitigations. The construction commissioner or complaints commissioner proposed by the Department for Transport simply will not have the remit or the expertise to monitor such a large project. In addition, it can only cover claims of up to £7,500. I believe we need truly independent scrutiny by an independent body. Some of the panel members should have relevant expertise, and most importantly, it should have enforcement powers.
	The history of this project is full of errors and omissions, including the downplaying of the environmental impacts, together with the “It will be fine” and “The people along HS1 did not complain” attitude of the promoter. We cannot trust what HS2 is currently offering. At the moment, it is in effect responsible for policing itself.
	The Government assure us that the environmental minimum requirements and the code of construction practice offer the necessary protections, but close examination of the documents does not provide such reassurance. The devil is always in the detail. In practice, it means that although HS2 is required to adopt measures to reduce the adverse environmental effects reported in the environmental statement, it only has to do so
	“provided that such measures are reasonably practicable and do not add unreasonable cost or delay to the construction or operation of the project”.
	In effect, that gives the nominated undertaker, which is in charge of monitoring itself, a “get out of jail free” card.

Andrew Bridgen: Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am that if HS2 is its own policeman, corners will be cut when the budget comes under further pressure, as it undoubtedly will, and local people and the environment will suffer as a result?

Cheryl Gillan: I think that will happen. Once this project is on its way, it will be easy to say that this would delay it or that would cost more. Presumably, it will be very easy for HS2 to say that almost any environmental mitigation could cause delays to the project and add to the cost, and therefore that it is not reasonably practical to implement it.
	I have looked at the complaints process. It cannot be sensible or practical to have a complaints process that ends up with the Speaker of the House as the adjudicator of last resort for dispute resolution in relation to the construction of HS2 and, most importantly, the implementation of environmental mitigation. I do not want to be fobbed off by the Minister with reassurances that the Department for Transport has covered it all with the construction commissioner, because we can be very sure that it has not. We owe the people burdened with this project, and the communities that are being destroyed, that extra level of scrutiny and protection, and somebody who they can turn to immediately.
	My remaining new clauses concern the tunnels and the look of this project in my constituency. I will summarise those points briefly because many people want to speak. It is not fair to say that my constituency has not been protected at all by additional tunnelling. As the Minister said in his opening remarks—I am told I am to be very grateful—there will now be a tunnel for two thirds of my constituency. My constituents are grateful for that, but 8.8 km of the route through the area of outstanding natural beauty is outside the tunnel. When we are doing such brilliant tunnelling with Crossrail 2, and when we know that tunnelling expertise in this country leads the world, why are we not using that to tunnel under a nationally protected piece of the environment? I have tabled these new clauses to remind the Minister that we will not give up on this issue at any stage, and I hope that the House of Lords will also give it due consideration.
	I have tabled an amendment on traffic, which is important because the traffic assessments from HS2 have been atrocious. I have also tabled amendments on pylons, and the possibility that we will be able to take the opportunity offered by HS2’s construction phase to ensure that if pylons are above ground, they are designed to fit in with the countryside, but that if possible they could be placed underground.
	I see that you are getting anxious, Madam Deputy Speaker, as am I, because the Government have not given us enough time to do justice to these new clauses. I am sorry that I have not been able to deploy all my arguments, but in the interest of allowing others to speak, and knowing that time has been taken out of this debate by the Opposition’s forcing a vote on something that is not relevant to now or to my constituents, I will let others speak.

Keir Starmer: New clause 22 deals with Euston, which is in the middle of my constituency. It is not easy to convey to the House the devastating impact that HS2 will have on my constituency, but let me try. HS2 will come into Primrose Hill and crash through to Euston, destroying everything in its path.
	Let me give the House the sheer numbers affecting my constituency: 2,986 people live within 60 metres of the construction site, a further 3,186 live within 120 metres, and 11,414 within 300 metres. That is 17,568 people in my constituency within 300 metres of the construction site. Some 220 family houses will be demolished, and up 1,000 people will lose their homes. Unless there is a plan for an integrated station at Euston, there is the risk that another 150 family homes will be lost, affecting another 600 people—1,600 people are at risk of losing their home.
	Many of the family homes that are not destroyed will be affected by noise, and according to HS2’s own figures, 1,025 family homes—that is 4,000 people—will be affected by noise that requires mitigating measures. Measures are already in place to consider up to another 850 homes and another 3,400 people. Some 7,000 people in my constituency could need noise mitigation measures because of what will happen with HS2 at Euston.
	That is not the end of it. If Euston is redeveloped, 3.5 million tonnes of spoil will need to be removed from the site, which is the equivalent of 26 miles of tunnelling for Crossrail. All that must come out of Euston, and there is no guarantee or assurance that that will be done by rail. The net effect for my constituents is the risk of 800 two-way lorry movements a day to remove that spoil, and 90% of those lorries will be HGVs.
	That brings me on to air quality, which is notoriously bad in London. It is particularly bad in the Euston area, and the HS2 environmental statement indicates that HS2 will have a substantial impact on nitrogen dioxide levels in a third of locations in the Euston area. If that was not enough on its own—it will have a devastating impact on the constituency—let me throw in two further factors.
	The first factor is time. The original HS2 Bill was premised on the completion of a new HS2 station at Euston by 2026. For my constituents, that seemed like a long time. In September 2015, the Government lodged “Additional Provisions 3”, their current plans for Euston. A new station is now to be developed in three phases. Stage A, to the west of the existing station, involves the construction between 2017 and 2026 of six platforms needed for phase 1. Stage B2, the construction in the second phase of further platforms within the existing station but not all of it, is intended to be completed by 2033. The redevelopment of the existing station, stage B2, is unfunded and unplanned, and may begin before or after 2033—half a station in twice the time.
	Another factor—there are more I could add to this litany of devastation in Holborn and St Pancras—is that even in 2033, having endured a construction site for the best part of 20 years, my constituents will not see a complete and integrated station in their constituency. On 1 December 2015, Tim Mould QC, HS2’s counsel, outlined to the Select Committee that a new integrated station at Euston is
	“not deliverable within appropriate funding constraints”
	and that this is the assessment of
	“the government, the Chancellor, the Prime Minister”.
	There is no timetable for Government funding to complete the final phase. As a result of the lack of planning and integration, Crossrail 2, which hopes to have an integrated station, is now planning on the basis that it may have to build part of its station in Somers Town, removing 150 buildings and displacing another 600 people—half a station in twice the time, with twice the damage.
	A child born next year in my constituency will grow up and leave home knowing nothing but construction work. A pensioner beginning retirement at 70 next year will live out their entire retirement knowing nothing but construction work around them. It is no wonder that at every meeting and everywhere I go in my constituency, anxiety is etched on the faces of everybody who talks to me about HS2. It is an appalling situation, one that is wholly unacceptable on any basis.
	I was elected to represent the people of Holborn and St Pancras. It is my privilege to do so; it is also my duty. I speak to each and every one of my constituents when I say that I will stand with them and fight with them to resist the wholly unacceptable damage that HS2 will bring to our communities.

Dominic Grieve: I will be extremely brief on the issue of the adjudicator. I listened very carefully to what the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) said and I have great sympathy with all the points he makes. This is why I am bound to say that I find it so odd that the Government will not accept the creative idea of having an office of the HS2 adjudicator. The scale of the project makes it desirable to have an independent arbitration authority to resolve the inevitable disputes that will arise over the way in which the scheme is carried out. If I may say so to the Minister, I would have thought it very much in the Government’s interests to accept this idea; otherwise, the burden will inevitably fall on Members of Parliament whose constituencies are affected, and the House’s time will be taken up with constant arguments about how HS2 is not observing its obligations or carrying out the work in accordance with the intention it originally presented.
	This is going to cause massive problems for the Minister and his Department and will probably clog up some of the House’s business time. It is all the more reason to have an independent adjudicator who is approachable exactly like an ombudsman and who can take on some of that burden and do it professionally and in a manner that reassures people and commands respect. I therefore strongly urge the Minister to accept new clause 8. It would be regrettable if the Government did not, because, as I say, an extra burden would fall on their shoulders as a result of the many problems that will inevitably arise during construction of the project.

Andy McDonald: I wish to speak to new clause 22 on the construction of an integrated station at Euston.
	There have been many discussions and consultations between HS2 and Camden Borough Council about Euston, and the new clause draws on the assurances that HS2 gave to Camden. The thrust behind this long and technical new clause reflects the fact that the redevelopment of Euston presents an enormous opportunity to build something of real worth to accommodate not only the station to the west for HS2 phase 1 and all its works but the redevelopment of the mainline station, and to take into account the requirements of phase 1 and, in due course, phase 2, including in anticipation of Crossrail 2 in the fullness of time.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the integration between Crossrail and Euston and what might be possible at Euston, but does he agree that it is completely mad that HS2, which will be coming from the north, does not go to St Pancras or even connect with HS1 to enable people to travel to the continent?

Andy McDonald: That point has been raised several times. The intention, as expressed in the documents, is to have a pedestrian connection between them.
	An overarching approach to an integrated station would not only take account of all the anticipated works but achieve the objectives of securing the best possible outcomes for the residents of Camden and minimising the enormous disruption they will undoubtedly suffer. Many properties will be demolished and other properties will be in extremely close proximity to the works; public open spaces will be lost; there will be fleets of heavy goods vehicles and commercial vehicles; and noise pollution will undoubtedly disrupt the peaceable enjoyment of many properties, including in places such as Cobourg Street, which is a tranquil community with a quiet courtyard at its heart, notwithstanding its close proximity to busy traffic and the railway station. Businesses in streets like Drummond Street will also be disturbed.
	We are asking the good people of Camden to put up with a great deal and to make huge sacrifices for the benefit of the nation, and Labour has tried to do all it can, in new clause 22 and in Committee, to mitigate the impact on the quality of life for residents. We acknowledge the sincerity of the Minister and his colleagues in working to that objective, but we take the view that this is so important that the assurances given ought to be in the Bill and have the full force of law.
	We seek to minimise the amount of excavated material and construction materials transported into and around the site by road and to have as much as possible moved by rail. Camden Council has developed a Euston area plan, and we propose that any designs for the enlarged Euston station take full cognisance of that plan and other such framework documents and relevant guidance. The assurances talk of various boards, including the Euston strategic board, the Euston station strategic redevelopment board and the Euston integrated programme board, which bring together a number of prescribed partners. We seek to ensure that the nominated undertaker—the relevant body carrying out the HS2 works—is obliged to participate in those boards, as the assurances given by HS2 so describe.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Euston station were holistically designed and developed, it would provide a huge opportunity for regeneration in the Euston area and produce a lot of good quality local affordable housing to replace some of the affordable housing that will be devastated by HS2?

Andy McDonald: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. That is the thrust of our new clause, which I trust he will support. It stipulates that the redevelopment board will advise the Secretary of State on the delivery of an “integrated and comprehensive design” for the enlarged Euston station, and it is for the integrated programme board to make sure that the designs and construction plans for Euston fit with proposals for other Euston schemes.
	Access is a real issue, so while the construction is under way, which it will be for many years, we want to ensure that pedestrians and cyclists have continuous access through the site, east to west and north to south, insofar as it is “reasonably practicable” to do so. A design panel will work to ensure that the relevant partners can agree an appropriate design. Whoever is appointed for these purposes by HS2 will be obliged to work with that panel to ensure full buy-in to the design. Indeed, there will be an obligation on the nominated undertaker to take proper notice of the recommendations made by the design panel, and if for some reason the nominated undertaker does not follow those recommendations, our new clause states that it will be required to explain why that is so. The new clause makes sure that the community is properly engaged throughout the construction works at Euston so that its concerns will be recognised and its voice heard.
	The provision is even more important, given today’s publication of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on a complaint about HS2. It effectively concludes that there are fundamental problems with the way HS2 Ltd communicates with the residents affected by their plans and the way it handles complaints.
	The report dealt with specific complaints, but it is worrying that the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has said:
	“There is still a culture of defensive communication and misinformation within this public body and that is not acceptable. Unless those responsible for delivering HS2 understand that first and foremost they serve the public, they will continue to be criticised for having complete disregard for the people, some of them vulnerable, who are impacted by this large-scale infrastructure project.”

Jim Cunningham: rose—

Andy McDonald: If my hon. Friend would not mind, I am conscious of my time drifting away.
	The Chairman continued:
	“We expect HS2 Ltd to prioritise its response to Ian Bynoe’s forthcoming recommendations on communication and engagement and on complaint handling. This is a matter of primary importance for HS2 Ltd, and must be treated as such.”
	I trust that the Minister will take on board the criticisms of the Committee and make sure that any necessary cultural and other changes are made so that there is no such repetition. I urge him further to consider, even at this late stage, accepting our representations in the context of this new clause.
	The new clause also provides that when the Secretary of State sets out the Government’s periodic railway investment plans, in what we have come to term “control periods”, he or she should set out the costs of and funding for the anticipated works in the planning period before the works start and during the control period in which the works will fall.
	Yes, previous infrastructure projects have had similar assurances woven into them and they have been observed, but this is such a huge infrastructural undertaking, the likes of which has never been done before in such a manner, on such a scale or over such a lengthy period of time. We believe that the people of Camden need to have more than just the assurances that have been given. On this occasion, we believe that we have to take the extra step of working those assurances directly into the Bill.
	The Minister will not need me to remind him that throughout the Public Bill Committee, Labour tabled a number of amendments and new clauses that pressed the Government to justify the inclusion of wide-ranging blanket powers granted to the Secretary of State for the purposes of the construction and operation of HS2. Each time the Minister responded by resisting our attempt to curtail the scope of the Secretary of State’s powers on the basis that the Government was taking a “belt and braces” approach so as to be absolutely sure. I am now therefore asking for the loan of his belt and braces— not to protect my dignity, but to protect the people of Camden.
	I do not intend to impugn the sincerity of HS2 Ltd or of the Minister, and he knows that. In the light of the comments from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the special set of circumstances that apply, we firmly believe that these provisions need to be enshrined in statute. I shall test the will of the House on new clause 22 by putting it to the vote.

Caroline Spelman: I have tabled some fresh amendments which are designed to help colleagues whose constituencies are along the line of route. In particular I shall highlight the important issue of the adjudicator, and I shall support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on new clause 7. I want to impress on the Government that when I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and published the “Natural Environment” White Paper, it was made clear that the objective was for a net positive outcome from offsetting. That is more ambitious than no net loss, and it can be achieved by, for example, combining offsets and regenerating degraded land such as the Tame river valley on the east of Birmingham, where the spur to Birmingham station will be built.
	My No. 1 ask for my constituency remains a tunnel to avoid the 40-foot flyover that will sever the parish of Berkswell, separating the primary school from the secondary school. I must impress on the Minister the opportunity that that would create to approach the new station underground, thereby preserving the flexibility above ground in an area where the land will be of extremely high value.
	I support new clauses 16 and 17, new schedules 2 and 3, and amendments 11, 12 and 13. New clause 16, which deals with speed and noise limitation, would ensure better protection from noise levels for those living alongside the whole course of the line. Train speed, contingent on noise, is an important concept not previously examined, and the new clause would ensure that HS2 must consider it carefully. New clause 17 would prohibit the entry of designated vehicles into designated areas. New schedule 2 is specific to my constituency, but new schedule 3 would cover any designated area. The new schedules would enable the Secretary of State to consider prohibiting HS2 contract vehicles weighing more than 8 tonnes from using certain roads during the construction phase, thus helping to ease the impact on local people.
	Amendment 12 seeks to give relevant parish and town councils a greater say over the conditions within the localised planning applications to ensure that they can influence the design of what they will have to live with. Amendment 13, which is also specific to my constituency, seeks to protect residents of Hampton-in-Arden from a proposal that could, theoretically, turn a once quiet country lane into a rat run on the approach to the new station. I have previously submitted a petition with 746 signatures to the House.
	I want to draw attention to a wider concern about the process behind the decisions that have been made. I have great respect for the members of the Select Committee, who “listened for England” over a 22-month period. However, there was a problem. If a deal could be cut in the corridor outside the Select Committee while one party was giving evidence, the other was excluded. The result of that was a lack of transparency which, in this day and age, is unfair to some of the petitioners.
	Unfortunately for me, new clause 36 was not selected, but it underlines the importance of integrating the HS2 project with existing road and rail networks.
	HS2 is a cross that some of us are having to bear. The load is heavy for our parliamentary offices. Our staff have had to put up with an extremely difficult period while serving as the interface with our constituents. However, I am still optimistic that this hybrid Bill will be amended in the other place: I do not view the Bill we are examining today as the final item.

Tulip Siddiq: New clauses 34 and 35, which I tabled, relate to construction at Canterbury Works and Alexandra Place in my constituency. I shall say something about the environmental impacts, but before that I want to make a point about the poor communication on the part of HS2, which has also been mentioned by Conservative Members.
	Last October, along with volunteers, I delivered letters to constituents living near Canterbury Works. It was the first time that many of them had even heard of the plans, which is simply not good enough. Many of the people who live near Canterbury Works and the Alexandra and Ainsworth estate speak English as a second language, and HS2’s poor communication meant that they had no idea of what was coming along the tracks towards them as a result of this devastating scheme. My new clauses would change that situation, and give some information and assurances to the people whose lives will be blighted by the scheme.
	At Canterbury Works, which is in the Brent area of my constituency, a vent shaft will be built in a very deprived area next to a school playground. Parents of pupils at the school have told me repeatedly how detrimental the construction will be to their children’s education, health and welfare. Arancha, a constituent and the parent of a pupil at the school, raised specific concerns about air pollution. She said:
	“Children will be directly affected by the impact of noise levels from construction, causing disruption to their learning experience, in particular for the percentage of pupils with Special Educational Needs”.
	Her concerns do not stand in isolation; they exist in a socioeconomic context that demands that south Kilburn should be given a better deal than the upheaval being imposed by HS2. The areas surrounding the proposed vent shaft in Brent are in the top 1% in the country for income deprivation affecting children.
	Let me turn to the other borough in my constituency, Camden. At Alexandra Place, another vent shaft will be built adjacent to crowded businesses and residential properties, and 100 vehicles a day will be emitting dangerous fumes within the confines of narrow roads that are surrounded on all sides by apartment buildings. Residents of a care home and the children living in the apartments on Alexandra Place will face increased risks to their health for many years. An article in The Sunday Times in October said that pollution in London was stunting the growth of children’s lungs, so when the Select Committee report states that “together” the two sites that I have named are “the most sensitive” locations for vent shafts in an urban area, its words should be taken seriously.
	I know that there is not much time, so I shall finish by saying that I do not object to transport schemes or infrastructure projects without giving them the utmost consideration. However, I am proud to call my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn home, because it is where I grew up, and the welfare of my constituents comes first. This scheme will blight their lives. It will affect the most vulnerable, and the years of construction will cause confusion and upheaval to people already living in deprived communities. This is my reason for speaking out against a scheme that will affect the most vulnerable in Hampstead and Kilburn.

Victoria Prentis: I should like to add my support to the amendments relating to the office of the adjudicator, which have been debated so well this afternoon. It is critical for my constituents to have someone who can intervene between them and HS2, and the cross-party, high-level legal support for those amendments should be noted by the Secretary of State and the House.
	The amendments tabled in my name are specific and I shall deal with them briefly. New clause 23 relates to Mixbury. The estimated frequency of the trains means that the noise will be almost continuous in that unspoiled village, which has as many stables as houses. HS2 has failed to engage with the community in Mixbury—this is a good example of failure to engage—on the question of adequate noise mitigation. The community is so concerned that the villagers are considering fundraising to install noise barriers themselves. I would like the House to take note of that.
	New clause 24 relates to Wardington, which, like so many areas in my constituency, has an existing traffic problem. HS2 construction traffic will turn that problem into a vision of hell. The Select Committee agreed that the village would struggle to cope. We have made sensible suggestions, including the movement of spoil by conveyor over the A43 and up the haul road. The new clause asks the Secretary of State to commission a review of the problem.
	New clause 25 relates to bridleways. My constituency has been repeatedly dissected over the centuries, including by the Oxford-Birmingham canal and, 29 years ago, by the building of the M40. Both brought great benefits to our area, but our bridleways have suffered. I am determined that they should not suffer again, particularly in pursuit of a scheme that brings no benefit to my constituents.

Andrew Slaughter: Given the lack of time, I shall speak only to amendment 16, tabled in my name, which seeks to give statutory protection to Wormwood Scrubs common. I should really say “more statutory protection” because, as metropolitan open land and strategic defence land, it is already protected by an Act of Parliament. More importantly, it hosts an extraordinary range of sports and pastimes. Thousands of disabled children ride at the pony centre every year. An organisation called the Friends of Wormwood Scrubs is seeking to protect its 200 acres of semi-wilderness, which form a substantial proportion of my constituency—an area in which open spaces are at a premium.
	However, in the time since HS2 was proposed, we have been asked to put a viaduct across it, and we have been told that it could be turned into formal gardens and that it could be amenity space for the luxury flats being built around the HS2 route. We are now being told that it will be a transit way for hundreds of thousands of people to walk across, which would essentially destroy this London landmark forever.
	Although I clearly will not today get the protection that I am seeking, I thank the Select Committee for recognising my representations and acknowledging that they were my only representations. I say to the Government and to HS2 Ltd that it will be a crime if this open space is despoiled over the course of the development.
	I wanted to make some more general comments as I think my constituency will see more development than any other. I will not say that I am as adversely affected as other hon. and right hon. Members, and some of the development is of course welcome, but if I am able to catch your eye on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can perhaps make some of those points then. I entirely support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said about the effect on their residents and businesses. As they used to be my constituents, I mention the residents of Wells House Road, Midland Terrace and Stephenson Street, whose homes will be blighted for many years to come and will be entirely surrounded by HS2 works.
	I could have tabled something similar to new clause 22 asking for the Old Oak Common development to be regulated, but that should not be necessary because the London Sustainable Development Commission is there to deal with such matters. At the moment, however, it is not working. I hope that it will work under a new Mayor, because we currently have unregulated development on the site and a huge opportunity cost, which is not allowing for proper exploitation of and investment in that land.

Robert Goodwill: The new clauses and amendments principally concern environmental issues, which the Government take very seriously. The Bill and the environmental minimum requirements establish robust environmental controls that have proved to be an effective mechanism on other projects, such as Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link. In addition, many of the new clauses and amendments relate to issues on which we have already provided assurances through the Select Committee process. Some comments were made during the debate, not least from the Opposition Front-Bench team, about those assurances not being worth the paper on which they were written, but they are commitments made to Parliament by the Secretary of State and are enforced by Parliament. The process worked well for Crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link, so we do not need a belt when have more than adequate braces—or “gallusses” as we call them in my part of the world. The Select Committee process led to nearly 400 alterations to the scheme and provided some 1,600 assurances and undertakings to those affected by HS2.
	I specifically want to touch on new clause 22, relating to the development of an integrated station at Euston, and I was pleased that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) managed to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. We share an ambition for the integrated redevelopment of Euston station and assurances have been provided to the London Borough of Camden. Indeed, I recently met the leader of the council to discuss such matters. Work is already under way regarding the commitments given in the assurances to Camden, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority on the overall integration of works at Euston and the co-ordination with Crossrail 2. I can also confirm that funding is available to progress initial feasibility work for the preparation of an outline masterplan for Euston station, which includes the classic, Network Rail element of the station.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister inform the House as to how many conventional platforms will have to be sacrificed at Euston to accommodate HS2?

Robert Goodwill: We have made it quite clear that phasing the development of the high-speed platforms at Euston will give us the opportunity to carry out some of that work, and we have changed the phasing to make it possible to operate other services into Euston. Indeed, we estimate that around a third of HS2 passengers will alight at Old Oak Common and use the Elizabeth line to access central London or Heathrow. While I recognise the desire to highlight the importance of such issues through new clause 22, legislation is unnecessary for Euston when progress has been and is being made.
	Transparency was mentioned by several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and we have appointed a residents commissioner to hold HS2 Ltd to account for how it communicates with residents and have committed to appoint a construction commissioner to deal with complaints that cannot be addressed by HS2 Ltd and its contractors. I hope that also reassures my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).
	On the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty review group, we have already committed to establish a Chilterns AONB group.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Robert Goodwill: I must make progress because we have only a minute left. On residential demolitions, we have committed to, and are progressing with Camden Council on, the replacement of all lost social housing in Euston as a result of HS2. On the prohibition of vehicles, an issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) and my hon. Friend the Member
	for Banbury, the Bill already requires local authorities to approve local routes, so the amendment on that is unnecessary.
	Many of the proposed new clauses and amendments would duplicate existing obligations already made to Parliament, and I do not believe it necessary to include them in the Bill. I therefore urge hon. Members to reject the proposed new clauses, new schedules and amendments.

Cheryl Gillan: In the light of the unsatisfactory reply from the Minister and the fact that he has relied again on saying that his appointees are adequate for the scrutiny of this project, I will have no other choice than to push new clause 8, which deals with the office of the HS2 adjudicator, to a vote. As for new clause 6, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	Two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted. (Programme Order, 22nd March)
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the questions necessary for the disposal of the business at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 8
	 — 
	Office of the HS2 Adjudicator

‘(1) There is to be a body corporate known as the Office of the HS2 Adjudicator hereinafter referred to as “the Adjudicator”.
	(2) Schedule [Adjudicator: status and funding] (which makes further provision about the Adjudicator) shall have effect.
	(3) The Adjudicator has the functions conferred on it by or under any enactment.
	(4) Those functions include—
	(a) enforced functions
	(b) inspection functions,
	(c) information functions.
	(5) The main objective of the Adjudicator in performing its functions is to protect the natural environment and communities impacted by the construction and operation of Phase 1 of High Speed 2.
	(6) The Adjudicator is to perform its functions for the general purpose of securing—
	(a) the minimisation of adverse impacts on communities and the natural environment situated in locations affected by the construction or operation of Phase 1 of HS2,
	(b) the provision of additional mitigation measures in the event the environmental impacts of the operation of HS2 are worse than as set out in the environmental statement prepared in accordance with section 66(4).” —(Mrs Gillan.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 43, Noes 245.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Construction of an integrated Euston Station

‘(1) The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to take reasonable steps to develop integrated and comprehensive design and construction plans for Euston Station that include integration with other Euston Schemes.
	(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) “reasonable steps” mean, but are not limited to, the following measures—
	(a) The nominated undertaker will seek to maximise, in so far as is reasonably practicable, the volume of excavated and construction material from the construction of the enlarged Euston Station and its approaches to be brought in and removed by rail;
	(b) The nominated undertaker will design an enlarged HS2 Euston Station having regard to all relevant parts of the Euston Area Plan and any other relevant Opportunity Area Frameworks or Guidance,
	(c) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in the Euston Strategic Board, which shall comprise representatives from the Department for Transport, HS2 Limited, the London Borough of Camden, the Greater London Authority, Transport for London, and in any successor or additional future governance arrangements which may be agreed between the London Borough of Camden, and the Greater London Authority and Transport for London from time to time,
	(d) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board which shall have the same membership as specified in subsection (2)(c), with the addition of Network Rail and any successor network and station operators, designated under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 and having responsibility for Euston Main Line Station or rail tracks that connect to that station,
	(e) The Euston Station Strategic Redevelopment Board will advise the Secretary of State on the delivery of an integrated and comprehensive design for the enlarged Euston Station and other Euston Schemes, alongside other duties which may be set out in its Terms of Reference which may be updated from time to time;
	(f) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Integrated Programme Board, the membership of which shall include the organisations specified in subsection (2)(b);
	(g) The Euston Integrated Programme Board shall have responsibility for managing the integration of the nominated undertaker’s Euston Station design and construction work plans with proposals for other Euston Schemes;
	(h) The nominated undertaker will be required to take all reasonable steps to maintain public access to Euston Station and through construction sites that are established for Phase One purposes, including for cyclists and pedestrians;
	(i) Where it is not reasonably practicable to maintain public access under subsection (2)(h), the nominated undertaker shall identify alternative measures to maintain public access and implement them where it is reasonable;
	(j) The nominated undertaker will be required to participate in a Euston Station Design Panel and use reasonable endeavours to agree the chairperson and other members jointly with Camden London Borough Council, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority, and Network Rail or any successor network operator as defined in subsection (2)(d);
	(k) The Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to have regard to all recommendations made by the Euston Station Design Panel regarding the nominated undertaker’s ongoing design work for Euston Station,
	(l) If requested to do so by the Euston Station Design Panel, the Secretary of State will require the nominated undertaker to notify Camden London Borough Council and the Greater London Authority of the full reasons for failing to incorporate into its design work any changes recommended by the Euston Station Design Panel,
	(m) The nominated undertaker will make provision for ongoing community engagement during the construction works for the enlarged Euston Station,
	(n) Details of the funding expected to be required to rebuild Euston Main Line Station shall be set out when the Secretary of State’s duties are fulfilled under paragraph 1(D)(1) of Schedule 4A to the Railways Act 1993 in respect of the review periods preceding the rebuild of Euston Main Line Station and the review periods during which the rebuild of Euston Main Line Station is expected to take place,
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), “Euston Schemes” shall be taken to mean—
	(a) The enlarged Euston Station as referred to in Schedule 1 to this Act,
	(b) The rebuild of the Euston Main Line Station,
	(c) Over site development and related development opportunities above the Euston Station and tracks in line with the Euston Area Plan; and
	(d) Additional proposals for new subterranean railways that may be introduced by the Greater London Authority or Transport for London during the Phase One construction period.
	(4) Nothing in this section shall override other limitations imposed by this Act.”—(Andy McDonald.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 190, Noes 254.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Third Reading
	Queen’s consent signified.

Natascha Engel: I inform the House that the amendments on the Order Paper have not been selected.

Patrick McLoughlin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Our railways and roads power our economy. It is almost two centuries since this House gave its backing to the pioneering railway from London to Birmingham—a line that changed our country, and on which many of our great cities still rely today. Of course, we could leave it as it is for another two centuries—congested and unreliable—and suffer the consequences in lost growth, lost jobs and lost opportunities, particularly in the midlands and the north. However, the House has already shown that it can do much better than that, by backing a new high-speed route, alongside other transport investments in road and rail access across the country.
	In 2013, Parliament passed the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013, paving the way for HS2. That was backed by welcome support and co-operation from all parts of the House, for which I thank all parties. We have made outstanding progress since then. British contractors are bidding to build the line. British apprentices are waiting to work on it. British cities are waiting to benefit from it. That is why today’s vote is so important.

Paul Farrelly: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Patrick McLoughlin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, a lot of people have been here all afternoon. We have a fairly short period for Third Reading, and I want to give other people the opportunity to speak.
	On what will be a Great British railway, phase 1 will be the bedrock of the new network. Phase 2a will take it to Crewe. Phase 2b will take it onwards to Manchester and Leeds.
	Our trains are more than twice as busy as they were 20 years ago, and growth will continue. HS2 will help us to cope. It will work, it will be quick, it will be reliable, it will be safe and it will be clean. When it is finished, we will wonder why we took so long in getting around to building it.
	Many hon. Members will want to speak, so I will keep my remaining remarks short. I will touch on the detail of the Bill. I will also set out the work that has been done on the environment. Then I want to describe what will come next, including what we are doing to build skills and manage costs.
	First, the Bill authorises the first stage of HS2, from London to Birmingham. The Bill has undergone more than two years of intense parliamentary scrutiny since 2013. Even before the phase 1 Bill was introduced, the principles of HS2 were extensively debated on the Floor of the House. In April 2014, we had the Second Reading of the phase 1 Bill.
	There was then a special Select Committee. I thank all members of the Committee, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who chaired it so ably. I also pay special tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk (Sir Henry Bellingham) and for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, sat on it for the whole Committee stage.
	The Committee heard over 1,500 petitions during 160 sittings. It sat for over 700 hours, and over 15,000 pieces of evidence were provided to it. It published its second special report on 22 February this year. The Government published their response, accepting the Committee’s recommendations.
	Many of the changes made to the scheme in the Select Committee related to the environmental impacts. Building any road or rail link has impacts, but we will build this link carefully, and we will build it right. For example, HS2 Ltd has today started to procure up to 7 million trees to plant alongside the line to help it blend in with the landscape. The changes made in Select Committee will mean less land take, more noise barriers and longer tunnels.

Rebecca Pow: I totally understand the economic reasons for this project, but may I just put in a bid for nature and for ancient woodland to be given the reverence it deserves? Much of it is already going to be undermined and threatened, so will the Secretary of State please ensure that this irreplaceable habitat is given all the reverence it deserves?

Patrick McLoughlin: I can assure my hon. Friend that, as I think I have shown, given the time taken in Select Committee, the way in which procedures can be put in place and the way in which the Woodland Trust appeared before the Select Committee to make its case, that that will be taken into account. As I have said, the planting of new trees is an important part of the work that has been done.
	We have done a huge amount to assess the environmental impacts. More than 50,000 pages of environmental assessments have been provided to the House. We have produced a statement of reasons setting out why we believe it is correct to proceed with HS2. That information is important to ensure that the House makes its decisions to support this vital project in the light of the environmental effects.
	I expect construction of HS2 phase 1, between London and Birmingham, to begin next year. To enable that, HS2 Ltd has this morning announced that nine firms have now been shortlisted for the civil engineering contracts for the line. Those contracts alone will create more than 14,000 jobs, and we want those jobs to be British jobs. That is why the HS2 skills college, with sites in Birmingham and Doncaster, will open its doors next year, to train our young people to take up those opportunities.
	It is not all about jobs; it is also about materials. HS2 will need approximately 2 million tonnes of steel over the next 10 years, and we are already holding discussions with UK suppliers to make sure that they are in the best possible position to win those contracts.
	Later this year, I will set out my decisions on HS2 phase 2. As that happens, we must have a firm grip on costs. The November 2015 spending review confirmed a budget for the whole of HS2 of £55.7 billion at 2015 prices. HS2 is a major commitment of public money, but it is an investment that Britain must make, and it can afford to do so: the cost of HS2 equates to about 0.14% of UK GDP in the spending review period.
	I respect the fact that there are those in this House who take a different view of the project, but it is about the future of our nation. It is a bold new piece of infrastructure that will be open to passengers in just 10 years’ time. This is about giving strength not just to the north, but to the midlands. Today I can get a high-speed train to Paris and other parts of Europe, but not to Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or Scotland. This is about boosting the links to the midlands manufacturing heartland and the connections to Leeds, York, the north-east and Edinburgh, and to the north-west, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. It is about making
	HS2 a part of our national rail network, including Euston, where we are not only building a world-class high-speed rail station, but funding work by Network Rail to prepare for the masterplan for Euston station, which is an important step forward in our vision of an integrated hub that will enhance the area. At Old Oak Common, I have agreed to the transfer of land to the development corporation, paving the way for more than of 25,000 new homes and 65,000 jobs.
	High Speed 2 is a measure of our ambition as a country and of our willingness to look beyond the immediate future and to take a hard-headed view of what we need to succeed as a nation. This is a railway that will unlock that future. I urge colleagues to support the Bill’s Third Reading, as they have done to date, and the carry-over motions so that it can continue its passage in the next Session.
	I commend the Bill to the House.
	Several hon. Members rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. I remind hon. Members that we have only half an hour to debate Third Reading and an awful lot of Members wish to speak, so there will be a speech limit of three minutes on all Back-Bench contributions in the hope that we can get as many people in as possible. If you use less time, everybody will be grateful.

Lilian Greenwood: Today’s proceedings mark the end of a long process and I am sure the House will want to express its gratitude to all those who served on the Bill Select Committee, the Clerks and all those who petitioned or who assisted the petitioners in making their case. The project has undoubtedly been improved by the parliamentary scrutiny it has received. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who represented the Opposition with great skill in the Public Bill Committee and on Report.
	HS2 is a Labour project. When the high-speed rail Command Paper was published in March 2010, the urgent need for greater capacity on our rail network was at its heart. Since that paper was published, passenger numbers have grown by a third. Punctuality has declined as the constraints on our existing infrastructure grow. The case for HS2 was based on the assumption that passenger demand would grow by 2.2% a year; in reality, the average is more than 5%. The case for HS2 has not weakened in the past six years—it has grown stronger and more urgent.
	Our north-south lines are testing the limits of their capacity. The midland main line has been officially designated as “congested infrastructure” and freight services are being turned away. The east coast operator has said that
	“this route faces track capacity limit.”
	Nowhere is our capacity shortfall more keenly felt than on the west coast main line between London and Birmingham, which is the most congested part of the busiest and most complex mixed-use line in Europe, carrying a quarter of all passengers and freight. At least £9 billion was spent on a hugely disruptive modernisation package for the line, and it did not deliver the benefits we were promised. Just a few years on, we have used up almost all the extra capacity, and even if we lengthened every train and converted every first-class carriage to standard, that would not be enough and it would not enable us to run a single extra train. On some sections of the west coast main line, the notorious curves and gradients are pre-Victorian, and they cannot be altered. We have reached the practical limits of the existing infrastructure, and new signalling would have limited benefits on such a busy route, where inter-city commuter and freight services all compete for scarce paths. The scale of the capacity challenge requires us to take action. Commuter services have already been cut back in the west midlands and on the approaches to Manchester because of a lack of capacity on our main lines.

Paul Farrelly: Does my hon. Friend recognise that in its current form, the Bill does not satisfy the concerns of north Staffordshire? There is no connectivity with or stop for Stoke-on-Trent, which is a far greater conurbation with a bigger economy that that of Crewe.

Lilian Greenwood: I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the Bill deals with the creation of the line between London and Birmingham. I am sure that we will return to questions of connectivity when we reach phase 2.
	As I was saying, freight operators are turned away, forcing lorries on to our already congested motorways. That has real consequences for our ability to meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets. I have visited places in the areas that my hon. Friend talked about south of Stoke where local stations have closed, not 50 years ago under Dr Beeching but in the last decade after paths for local services were reassigned.
	Some might ask why we are investing in new infrastructure when sections of the existing network need to be upgraded, as, of course, they must be. The Great Western electrification scheme, the costs of which have risen by more than 400% in just five years, is a sobering reminder that route upgrades are no panacea. We could spend an equivalent sum on a conventional modernisation programme, but it would lead to 2,000 weekends of closure and misery for passengers, and it would trigger enormous compensation payments to train operators. At the end of such a project, a conventional upgrade would deliver less than half the additional capacity of a new line. By contrast, new build infrastructure is more resilient and it will allow us to integrate high-speed rail with existing lines, revolutionising journeys between cities directly on the route and beyond it.
	That potential is reflected in the support for this project not just from the leaders of Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, but from those of Liverpool, Bristol, Newcastle, Cardiff and Glasgow. After billions has been invested in Thameslink, Reading, HS1 and Crossrail, this project is about building 21st-century infrastructure in the midlands and the north, not just London and the south-east. It will support jobs and skills through our world-class rail supply chain at Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe, Bombardier in Derby, the training colleges in Doncaster and Birmingham, and the hundreds of small and medium-sized enterprises across the country that support the construction and maintenance of tracks and trains.
	We urgently need better connections and more capacity, and HS2 is the right project to provide them. There are, however, questions that need to be answered about the Government’s stewardship of the scheme. HS2 was always conceived of as a wider network, and Ministers were due to confirm the phase 2 route at the end of 2014, but that deadline has slipped by two years. That is compounding planning blight for residents, prolonging uncertainty about station locations and warding off private sector investment. It is incumbent on Ministers to confirm their plans for high-speed rail in the midlands and the north.
	We have heard today about the Government’s inadequate treatment of Euston. The 1960s station is no longer fit for purpose. With 10 million more passengers a year using Euston than in 2010—a staggering increase of 43%—it is clear that a rebuild would be needed even without HS2. We urgently need a plan for a comprehensive redevelopment of Euston station, but four times HS2 Ltd has presented different plans for the site, all of which would lead to years of disruption for residents and businesses.
	I have been glad to work with the Labour leadership of Camden Council to help to win a series of assurances from the Government on the removal of construction materials by rail rather than road, the development of a plan for an integrated station design and support for affordable housing provision. However, the reality still falls a long way short of the Chancellor’s rhetoric, and it is deeply disappointing that Ministers voted against our amendment on the matter. The Opposition will, no doubt, come back to that in the other place.
	To conclude, as well as putting on the record my appreciation of the role played by my hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough and for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), who served as shadow rail Ministers during the passage of the Bill, I want to record my appreciation of my predecessors as shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), who all showed great constancy, even when there were reports of leaves on the line.
	HS2 is essential for meeting our capacity challenge and rebalancing the economic geography of the UK. I will vote for the Bill today, and I encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to do the same.

Cheryl Gillan: I have three minutes to sum up six years of hell for my constituents in Chesham and Amersham.
	I pay tribute to the dignity and persistence of my constituents, who have remained committed to positive change in the face of great adversity. Those individuals are too numerous to mention, but they include my dedicated constituency staff, our local councils at all levels, our environmental and community organisations, the Clerks of the House—they have been tremendous—and colleagues who have served on both the Committees on the Bill.
	I thank colleagues who have stood four-square with me, despite all the pressures that have been brought to bear on them when I have opposed the project. We have succeeded in making some positive changes that will make a real difference to people’s lives. The two extensions to the Chilterns tunnels are very important; the improvements to the “need to sell” scheme are also significant; and even the Chilterns AONB review panel, if it comes about, is important—to name but three aspects of the project.
	However, HS2 is being built on the backs of my constituents, who are losing their homes, their businesses, their peaceful retirement, their heath and their communities. The Prime Minister promised me the most environmentally friendly Government ever and that compensation for people affected by HS2 would be fair and generous. This project will still cause damage along over 8 km of the line through a nationally designated, environmentally protected area, and many of my constituents are still fighting for fair treatment and compensation. They would not use the words “fair” and “generous” about the compensation.
	For the all the inequitable and atrocious handling of the project, for the poor value for money for the taxpayer, for the inadequate integration of the project and for the damage it will cause my constituency and constituents, I will vote against the Bill again this afternoon. I urge hon. Members to join me in doing so. It may not achieve very much, because Labour and Conservative Members are being whipped to support the project, but at least I will be able to put my head on my pillow knowing that I have done the best by my constituents. I have tried to protect them from the ravages of a project that will consume vast amounts of taxpayers’ money and suck it out of the rest of the system. My constituents and many others up and down the line will pay disproportionately for the burden of political intransigence.

Alan Brown: Once again, I confirm that we welcome the HS2 proposals before Parliament. We certainly welcome the wider context of the roll-out of the high-speed network, as well as the Government’s commitment, alongside that of the Scottish Government, to the aspiration for a three-hour journey time between Glasgow or Edinburgh and London. That will mean a quicker point-to-point journey time compared with using Gatwick or Heathrow airports. It will bring obvious environmental benefits and, clearly, much greater choice for air travellers.
	I welcome the release earlier this week of the broad options report, which was commissioned by both Governments. It is important to develop these options as soon as possible to achieve shorter journey times to Scotland. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have confirmed their commitment to rail investment with the construction of the Borders rail line, which is the longest rail line to be constructed in the UK since Victorian times. As we have already heard, the vast bulk of the existing rail network was built in Victorian times. It stood the test of time fantastically, but now is the time to reinvest in and to future-proof the rail network. That will be done through these options.
	I welcome the proposals, and I look forward to the roll-out of the high-speed network and to the improvements on lines to the north to improve journey times to Scotland.

Robert Syms: I will be brief. This has been a long process, and in many respects it has been Parliament at its best, listening to people from ordinary communities, many of whom will be badly affected by the impact of the railway. However, as a senior Clerk said to me, the last time we looked at the
	Standing Orders was 1946, and without taking away the right of somebody to come before the Committee it is right that we consider that process. There will be further phases of this project, and perhaps airports will come in along the line. I therefore hope that the Leader of the House and the House authorities have a good look at how we could make things a little more efficient. On occasion, we listened to people who were burning up a lot of time but who we felt were not affected, and that had an impact on some people whose farms are being cut in half and who will be very badly affected. There is an argument for reform, and I hope that the House authorities consider it, so that any future Committee that has the good task of listening to people who will be affected by such a project will do so more efficiently.

Louise Ellman: I support the Bill, which will bring vital capacity for an expanding railway. It is reassuring to see that so many of the points raised by the Transport Committee in 2011 are now incorporated into the Bill, including maximising jobs, whether in construction or regional economic development. High Speed 2 is part of a connected railway, with plans for ensuring that lines freed by the construction of High Speed 2 can be used for passengers and freight. We must ensure that those who are not on a high-speed line or situated near a high-speed station do not lose out.
	It is vital that the necessary investment in High Speed 2 does not come at the expense of investment in the classic line, but evidence to date suggests that that will not be the case. Improvements in other parts of the country, including east-west links, must be linked with high-speed rail as part of the connected rail network. When in phase 2 the trans-Pennine developments take place—now known as High Speed 3—it is vital that High Speed 2 is linked into that so that, in the words of Lord Adonis, the chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission:
	“Route decisions on the northern sections of HS2 should support enhanced high speed connections within the north including between Leeds-Sheffield, Liverpool-Manchester, and Sheffield-Newcastle.”
	I am sorry that we are not considering High Speed 2 as one Bill, and that instead we have it in two phases, and I hope that the end date of 2034 can be brought forward. However, I am pleased that we are deciding on the go-ahead for phase 1 of High Speed 2. This is for the future. It is about vision and confidence in the railway sector and public transport, and I hope that hon. Members will approve the Bill.

Michael Fabricant: I am not one of those who say that HS2 is a white elephant, or that there is no congestion on the west coast main line—indeed, today 5,000 people arrive standing on trains as they come into Euston. I accept the need for an additional north-south corridor, and if that can be high-speed, then all the better because there is not that much additional cost.
	Before I come to my main point, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and all his colleagues for their work on the Committee, as well as the Transport Secretary who, given the structure of HS2, has been incredibly helpful to my constituents in Lichfield.
	I do not believe, however, that I can support HS2, because it is not an integrated railway. I could not understand why it was so appalling, until I heard the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) say that HS2 is a Labour project. Only a Labour project could be so unintegrated with the rest of the transport system. Lord Adonis chose a system whereby people arrive at Euston from Birmingham and then have to trek across London with their bags to get to St Pancras. The promises that were made—that people would get on to a train in Birmingham and wake up in Paris—have come to naught. When people get to Birmingham, can they get on to network rail because the train arrives at Birmingham New Street? No. That would have been too obvious. This Labour project, so brilliantly designed yet so sadly duplicated by the Conservative Administration, instead goes into Curzon Street, and people have to schlep across Birmingham to get there, too.
	It is about as integrated as my old Hornby 00 railway. I put that on the carpet and it went round and round, but it did not connect with the road or other railway systems, because it was a toy. I would not go so far as to say HS2 is a toy, but it is damaging and it could have been designed better. That is why I have to say to my hon. Friends the Whips that—I am not going to make it a habit—I will have to vote against Third Reading.

Barry Gardiner: I am not against HS2. I am for trees, but not just any trees; trees that enhance our environment and improve our biodiversity. I want to pick up on two very brief points, in relation to the remarks of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), on net biodiversity loss and translocation.
	It is absolutely clear that the commitment in the Government’s White Paper was not simply to no net biodiversity loss but to leaving the natural environment of England in a better state. This project will set a precedent on how to deal with the natural environment for all future major infrastructure projects. The question is whether it will fulfil the promise of improving the natural environment, leaving it in a better state for our children. National planning policy framework 118 is absolutely clear:
	“planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland”.
	Ancient woodland is irreplaceable.
	The Secretary of State used the figure of 7 million trees when he spoke from the Dispatch Box earlier. Seven million trees, if planted at the rate suggested by the Woodland Trust of 2,500 trees per hectare, would give rise to 2,400 additional hectares. I want a commitment from the Secretary of State that they will be additional hectares: additional to the Government’s promise that 5,000 hectares of new woodland will be planted in England each year, a promise that at the moment is not being met. Some 2,400 hectares had been planted up to 2014-15, which is more than 4,000 hectares light on the existing promise. I want a commitment that the additional 2,400 hectares—the 7 million trees he spoke of—will be on top of the existing promise that is not being met.
	Finally, on translocation, Natural England clearly states that an
	“ancient woodland ecosystem cannot be moved”.
	The Woodland Trust’s extensive research into translocation states:
	“The only thing that is certain when translocation of ancient woodland soils is undertaken is that a valuable habitat will be destroyed.”
	There is no guarantee that a similarly valuable habitat will be created. The idea, therefore, that translocation can be used and justified as the Minister attempted to do earlier—he is an honourable and decent man using the information that his civil servants no doubt gave him—is wrong.

Simon Burns: As someone who was involved in much earlier parts of the planning process, I am delighted that tonight the Bill will progress from this House to another place. That is long overdue. It is sad that, for far too many major infrastructure projects that this country badly needs, the process of getting from the beginning to the end is so drawn out.
	I pay tribute not only to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister for all they have done—and to the civil servants who have backed them up—but to the Labour party, which was not prepared to play narrow party political games on what is in the national interest. It has stuck by the national interest to ensure that the project will go ahead.
	I accept there will be disruption and problems along the line. That is very upsetting, but I offer one beacon of hope to those people. When I first came into this House in 1987, the same arguments were being bandied about across the Floor of the House on High Speed 1. The local authorities were against it and the local communities were against it. They fought it, with hon. Members in this House, tooth and nail to try to stop it. It happened, and now local communities along the route in Kent are thrilled with the resulting benefits—the economic benefits, the regeneration, and the improvements in connectivity and capacity. I am convinced that when HS2 is finally completed, in 2033, people who do not think there will be any benefits now will come to learn that there are major benefits not only to their communities but in improved capacity.
	The point about capacity is critical. The west coast main line will run out of capacity in the middle of the next decade, and it is not acceptable for any Government, of whatever party, to ignore that fact and allow our transportation system to come to a grinding halt. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will have a speedy passage through another place and on to the statute book so that phase 2, to Leeds and Manchester, can be expedited. We will thereby finally get a fit-for-purpose, modern transportation system along the spine of this country.

Jonathan Reynolds: I rise to support the Bill and to commend both Front Benches for the cross-party support on this issue. It would have been easy for the Labour party to play this for short-term political advantage in the last Parliament or this one; that we have not done so is to our credit, especially that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).
	I am a former shadow Rail Minister and was a member of the Bill Committee, so I feel confident in saying that I am familiar with this issue. I say this: this country needs HS2. The key issue is capacity—it has always been about capacity. So often the conversation has been bogged down in arguments about journey times, but that misses the point. Of course, if it takes me less time to get from the House of Commons to Stalybridge station’s world-famous buffet bar, that is welcome, but it is more important that I can do so on a train with enough seats for everyone. With the west coast main line expected to be full by the middle of the next decade, it is vital that we act now. In fact, this is the one time I can think of when this country has acted on a major infrastructure problem before it has become acute. If only our predecessors had done the same with aviation capacity!
	The railways are filling up and are crying out for this investment. The statistics speak for themselves. Each day, 3,000 passengers arrive at Euston or Birmingham standing up on trains, having been unable to get a seat. The benefit of HS2 will be to address that looming capacity crunch. More powerful than the statistics, however, are the experiences of passengers—especially those who have the unpleasant experience of being on a packed train leaving or coming into London. I can still vividly remember my wife phoning me after a particularly hellish journey from London to Manchester. Eight months pregnant, she was forced to spend the two-hour journey on the floor outside the toilet entertaining a two-year-old. That should not happen on a 21st-century railway network.
	The common arguments against HS2 do not stack up. Spending the money on upgrading the existing line will cost more and give us less. Building a new line that is not high speed will cost nearly as much but give us a fraction of the capacity. Saying we should spend the money on local services rather than north-south improvements fails to understand that the way to improve local services is to free up that existing infrastructure by building a new line. As for the argument that this will be a railway only for the wealthy, we simply have to apply the laws of supply and demand. The guaranteed way to price people off the railway would be to do nothing, because if demand is rising and supply does not increase, prices will go up.
	I have great ambitions for what HS2 can deliver for the north, and particularly Greater Manchester—jobs, growth, connectivity, better wages, better career paths and, of course, the opportunity for hard-pressed Londoners more easily to spend time in the UK’s real first city: Manchester. I commend the Bill to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I was not expecting to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am delighted.
	Having sat on the Select Committee, I wish to say two things, hopefully in less than a minute. First, the hybrid Bill Committee system needs overhauling: 160 days—not for me, as I only joined after the election—and 1,600 petitions is unsustainable. Somebody needs to look at the system. Finally, we should all celebrate the fact that we have a record number of people travelling on trains, but we need more capacity. I say to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, even though he did not acknowledge that I had been on the Committee, that we need to plan this thing properly. We must ensure that there is proper connectivity into HS2 from all the other lines and that the west coast main line and other lines can make the most of the opportunity for freight.

Andrew Slaughter: I support the principle of high-speed rail and this project, not least because it allows the regeneration of the Old Oak area in my constituency—by some distance the largest development area in the country, bringing more than 24,000 homes and 50,000 new jobs to an area of severe deprivation. I support the project with reservations, and I have been happy to work with those on both sides who will be voting against the Bill tonight, because the local implications for residents, businesses and the environment have not been properly considered through this process. I say that with all due respect to the Committee, which has done an excellent job and worked incredibly hard.
	In the minute left available to me, let me mention three things. First, if the issue is about capacity and not so much about speed, why are there not more stations, which would make it more beneficial to areas between London and Birmingham? Secondly, why are there not better links with HS1? I accept why the Camden link had to go, but it is ridiculous not to have those better links.
	Thirdly, why can we not have a proper integrated centre at Old Oak, which would bring the Great Western line, the overground, the underground and Crossrail together? It is a huge wasted opportunity not to use that land properly. It is a real waste of public money and opportunity in that area. I urge the Government to look at that again and to work with the new Mayor, who I hope will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), to ensure that we have proper regeneration on that site.
	Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 22 March).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 399, Noes 42.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

HIGH SPEED RAIL (LONDON - WEST MIDLANDS) BILL: CARRY-OVER (NO. 3)

Ordered,
	That the following provisions shall apply in respect of the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill:
	(1) Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament.
	(2) If a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session—
	(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time;
	(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in Session 2013-14, Session 2014-15 or this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session.
	(3) The reference in paragraph (1) to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
	That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—(Mr Goodwill.)

Heidi Alexander: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Today the British Medical Association has announced that it plans to escalate the industrial action of junior doctors planned for 26 and 27 April. Can you advise me as to whether you have received any notification from the Department of Health about whether the Secretary of State for Health intends to make a statement to the House tomorrow, updating us on what action he will take to avert that industrial action and bring an end to the ongoing dispute?

Lindsay Hoyle: I have had no notification that the Secretary of State is coming forward. However, the hon. Lady has got the matter on the record, and I am sure that people will be listening to the debate that is taking place at this very moment. Let us wait and see.

Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Believe it or not, this is a point of order about procedure. We have just had a debate and a vote and have approved over £55 billion of expenditure. The Third Reading debate on this country’s biggest ever infrastructure project lasted just half an hour and large numbers of hon. Members were not able to be called. I would have liked to have talked about the lack of investment in Lincolnshire’s railways, for example, and other points could have been made. The limits have become absurd, so will you have a word with Mr Speaker? The Procedure Committee, of which I am a member, is looking at this, but we could have a procedure by which you or one of your colleagues could have extended the debate for just another half an hour.

Lindsay Hoyle: As you know, it is a matter for the Government how they timetable the business. As you rightly say, you have a view that you wish to express. Unfortunately, we are not in charge of the business. I am sure that everybody who reads Hansard will realise that you have raised this on the Floor of the House, even though it is not a point of order for the Chair.

Cheryl Gillan: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have raised the issue of the procedures on the hybrid
	Bill process with the Procedure Committee, but because it is a private process it may be difficult for the Committee to look at those. I very much hope that the Government are going to re-examine the hybrid Bill process, and that view has been echoed in the words of many of my friends, particularly those who have served on the HS2 Bill Committee.
	The process is not satisfactory from the perspective of either the House or the people most affected by the project. I very much hope that this will not take too long and you could advise me as to whether the House eventually could change those procedures, so that large infrastructure projects are not dealt with in such an opaque and difficult manner.

Lindsay Hoyle: The House can invite the Procedure Committee to look into this matter, as you well know. And you know better than I do how the procedure of this House works, after so many years in this place.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether we could have a tidying-up of the procedures of the House. In the light of English votes for English laws, Health questions and Education questions, as they are termed, are actually English Health questions and English Education questions. It would be better for voters up and down the length of the current UK if they understood that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Once again, the answer is the same: it is for this House to invite the Procedure Committee to look into the matter. If you believe there is a wrong, I am sure the Committee will make sure it gets put right.
	I have now to announce the result of today’s two deferred Divisions. In respect of the question relating to electricity, the Ayes were 287 and the Noes were 232, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to public sector pensions, the Ayes were 287 and the Noes were 211, so the Ayes have it.
	[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
	With the leave of the House, I will put motions 4 and 5 together, as they cover the same area.

SCOTLAND BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Scotland Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under the Scotland Act 1998 out of the National Loans Fund.

SCOTLAND BILL (WAYS AND MEANS)

Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Scotland Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the National Loans Fund.—(David Mundell.)

Scotland Bill (Programme) (No.3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Scotland Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 8 June 2015 (Scotland Bill (Programme)) and 9 November 2015 (Scotland Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(David Mundell.)
	Question agreed to.

Scotland Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Lindsay Hoyle: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendment 22. If the House agrees with the amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 3
	 — 
	Elections

David Mundell: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 62.

David Mundell: This is a truly significant day for Scotland. If this Bill completes its parliamentary progress, it will add to the already extensive responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament a range of important new powers. It provides even greater opportunities for the Scottish Government to tailor and deliver Scottish solutions to Scottish issues. The Scottish Parliament that returns in May will be a powerhouse Parliament that has come of age. Crucially, it will be much more accountable to the people who elect it, which is the hallmark of a mature democratic institution.
	I am pleased to say that Lord Smith of Kelvin has confirmed that the Bill puts into law the agreement that the five main political parties in Scotland reached, and that the fiscal framework that was agreed means that the recommendations of his commission have been delivered in full.
	Last week, the Scottish Parliament debated the motion on whether to grant legislative consent to the Bill before us today, and the agreement was unanimous. Deputy First Minister John Swinney remarked:
	“The Smith process delivered an agreement for additional powers that—if they are used in the right way—can benefit the people of Scotland.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 March 2016; c. 3.]
	I agree with him wholeheartedly on that.
	The debate last week demonstrated the consensus among all parties in Scotland that these new powers present a tremendous opportunity for Scotland. That was clear in their unanimous vote to grant legislative consent to this Bill. This process goes to show that both of Scotland’s Governments and both of Scotland’s Parliaments can work effectively together in the interest of the people in Scotland and right across our United Kingdom.
	No individual or party held a monopoly of wisdom as to how the Smith agreement might best be translated into legislation. Many people, both inside and outside this Chamber, have contributed to the Bill as it stands before us today. I thank hon. Members and noble Lords for their contributions as the Bill passed through this House and the other place.

John Redwood: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. When this important work was being done, there were obvious and big consequences for England. Which Minister or Ministers spoke for England during the negotiations?

David Mundell: My right hon. Friend has asked that question before. This legislation has been debated on the Floor of this House and on the Floor of the other place. Extensive scrutiny of the Bill has taken place. Indeed, there has been the opportunity to scrutinise the fiscal framework as well, so extensive scrutiny has been delivered in relation to this legislation for the people of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland.
	The Bill has been strengthened by the scrutiny it has received, and I am pleased that the amendments that I will cover shortly are a positive and constructive culmination of that process.

Angus MacNeil: Going back to the previous intervention, it was obvious from the voices on the Scottish National party Benches that all the other Ministers, especially those from the Treasury, spoke for interests other than those of Scotland. Is it not time to move away from this form of devolution, whereby we effectively get the crumbs from the table at Westminster, to a model that Copenhagen shares with the Faroe Islands and Greenland, in which the larder is always open and they get to choose their own powers. Instead of taking the crumbs from Westminster, we should be able to take the powers that we want from Westminster when we want them.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman’s colleagues may agree with him, but I do not think that the people of Scotland do. The people of Scotland made it very clear in September 2014 that they wanted to remain part of our United Kingdom, but they wanted a Scottish Parliament with enhanced powers, which is what this Government are delivering. The hon. Gentleman strikes a rather sour note, given the consensus within the Scottish Parliament and among his colleagues in the Scottish Government—a consensus that recognises the importance of these powers that will be delivered by this Bill if it completes its passage today.
	I also acknowledge the work of the Committees of both the Scottish and the UK Parliaments, including those chaired by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in this place, by the noble Lords, Lord Lang, Baroness Fookes and Lord Hollick, in the other place and by Bruce Crawford in the Scottish Parliament. The broad range of evidence and expertise they marshalled in the Bill’s scrutiny has improved it materially.
	I also wish to thank the Deputy First Minister, John Swinney MSP, and Scottish Government officials for their always courteous engagement in this process. Scotland gets the best outcome when its two Governments work together.
	I am truly grateful to all my officials at the Scotland Office and the officials from the 10 other Whitehall Departments whose hard work has got us to this stage. My noble Friends Lord Dunlop and Lord Keen of Elie have played an essential role in the Bill’s passage through the other place; I also commend Lord McAvoy and Lord Wallace of Tankerness in particular for their work. The origin of the Bill is the Smith agreement, and I once again pay tribute to Lord Smith of Kelvin and the representatives of all five of Scotland's main political parties for reaching an agreement that redefined the devolution settlement.
	A number of technical amendments were made in the other place to ensure that the Bill devolves the powers intended effectively and efficiently. There were also substantive amendments related to the fiscal framework and responsible parking.
	In line with the Smith Commission agreement, the fiscal framework agreement changes the powers available to the Scottish Government for both resource and capital borrowing. Lords amendments 22 and 58 set out clearly, and consistent with the existing legal framework, new borrowing powers for the Scottish Government. Lords amendments 23 and 59 deal with independent fiscal scrutiny in Scotland and the UK. Those amendments formalise the arrangements around the Office for Budget Responsibility’s access to information from Scottish institutions, notably the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Scottish Government.
	A number of minor and technical amendments were made to the welfare provisions in the Bill. Lords amendments 50 to 52 are minor amendments to ensure that powers and procedure for secondary legislation transfer effectively. Lords amendment 24 is technical in nature and ensures that executive competence will be transferred to the Scottish Ministers, so that they can make payments of Sure Start maternity grants, funeral payments, cold weather payments and winter fuel payments when clause 21 is commenced. Lords amendment 28, which proposes a new clause after clause 30, and Lords amendment 29 make it clear that the Social Security Advisory Committee and the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council will advise the Secretary of State only, and Lords amendments 25 to 27 are technical amendments made as a result of that change.
	Lords amendments 1 to 20, on elections, are also technical amendments which clarify the provisions and improve the drafting. Lords amendments 17 to 20 in particular amend clause 11 on the supermajority provision in the Bill. The amendments enable a Bill in the Scottish Parliament to pass to Royal Assent if the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament decides that a simple majority is required: the Bill is passed with a simple majority but is referred to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agrees that only a simple majority was required. Lords amendment 57 provides that clauses 3 to 12 will come into force on such a day as the Secretary of State may appoint by regulations made by statutory instrument. That will allow time for necessary consequential and saving provisions related to elections to be made.
	Lords amendments 30 to 36 are technical amendments that would remove an unnecessary reference in clause 35 to the Equality Act 2006.
	Amendments to clauses 39 and 40 and schedule 2 align the competence of the Scottish Ministers for road signs and speed limits with the competence of the Scottish Parliament. As a result, once the clauses are commenced, the Scottish Ministers will have the power to make regulations providing speed limit exemptions or to give general directions in relation to traffic signs and pedestrian crossings to the same extent as the Scottish Parliament has legislative competence. A considerable amount of work has already been done to develop a new set of regulations to prescribe speed limit exemptions. If they are to be truly effective, changes to relevant traffic signs regulations will also be needed. Traffic signs are already being devolved to the Scottish Parliament in other clauses of the Bill. Work on traffic signs regulations has also been part of a long-term project to bring in GB-wide revised regulations.
	Those amendments will enable the Secretary of State, with Scottish Ministers’ consent, to make a single set of regulations that are GB-wide in their application and allow vehicles used for various purposes connected with devolved matters to have exemptions from both speed limits and certain road signs and general directions. The aim is to assist stakeholders and avoid duplication of work already carried out by the Department for Transport, benefiting everyone who needs to travel at speed on roads. In addition, these amendments treat amendments to section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 made by the Road Safety Act 2006 as though they were in force when clause 38 comes into force.
	In Committee, Labour tabled an amendment on responsible parking. The amendment was also raised in the other place. I have for some time been committed to seeking a solution to this issue. Lords amendments 38 and 46 seek to address the long-standing problem of irresponsible parking, which has a particular impact on people with disabilities, parents with pushchairs and the elderly, especially when vehicles have been badly parked on pavements. We took forward discussions with the Scottish Government on this matter, and, as a result of these discussions, amendments were tabled in the other place that will enable the Scottish Parliament to address this issue. This is a good example of the sort of running repair which from time to time it is prudent to make to the devolution settlement, and demonstrates the collaborative relationship between the two Governments.
	Lords amendment 49 revises clause 45(8) on onshore petroleum to ensure that the Secretary of State’s enforcement ability in relation to reserved matters is preserved for licences in respect of onshore Scotland. Amendment 48 removes a redundant reference.
	Clause 68 confers on the Secretary of State the power to make consequential, transitional and saving provisions by regulations. Lords amendments 53 to 56 amend this provision in response to feedback from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	The Government made substantial amendments to the Bill on Report in this House. The Lords amendments are largely technical, but nevertheless include important provisions related to the fiscal framework and responsible parking. I am pleased that they were accepted in the other place. I urge the House to accept the Lords amendments.

Ian Murray: The Secretary of State’s description of the road traffic changes had me mesmerised. I could have listened to him all evening. We thank him for that.
	It is a great pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition. I am not going to pretend that the passage of the Bill has been entirely enjoyable, smooth or stress-free, but we are where we are and it has definitely been worth getting to this place. Every Member of this House and the other place should be incredibly proud of what has been achieved in such a short space of time. Some will say the Bill does not go far enough, and some will be disappointed that it does not contain what they wanted, but I think today marks a historic day in the devolution journey of our Scottish Parliament.
	When this Bill is passed—there is no longer any doubt that it will be passed today—Scotland will have one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. That is what the Labour party has always wanted from that process. It was the former Prime Minister, the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, who devised the vow that promised more powers. Let us pay tribute both to him and to the Daily Record for publishing it at the time. [Interruption.] I knew I would get a reaction to that. If only I had said The National, the response from the SNP Benches might have been different.
	That paved the way for the Smith commission, skilfully chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, who managed to negotiate cross-party agreement on the form that those powers should take. That in turn laid the foundations for the Bill before us today. It has now passed through this place and the other place. A revised fiscal framework has been agreed, crucially with the Barnett formula at its heart. As promised, the vow has been delivered, with Barnett protected. That was always a Labour party priority, as we recognise the integral role played by the Barnett formula in maintaining public spending in Scotland. That said, and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies astutely observed, during the fiscal framework negotiations it was, ironically, the SNP Government who insisted upon Barnett as sacrosanct. With the zeal of the convert, they argued vociferously for an approach
	“which ensures the ongoing pooling and”
	sharing
	“of some proportion of ‘devolved’ revenues across the UK.”
	Of course, as long-standing advocates of the Barnett formula and the principle of pooling and sharing resources that it enshrines, we gave the Scottish Government our full backing in those negotiations. I wonder whether that now means that the Scottish National party has renounced its No. 1 policy priority of full fiscal autonomy—perhaps we will hear this evening.
	However, at least for the time being we have an agreement. The irony is that this Bill will wing its way to Her Majesty to receive Royal Assent, hopefully later tonight, on the eve of what would have been separation day in Scotland. It creates one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world, as opposed to the White Paper prospectus promised by the SNP in 2014.
	Some of the Lords amendments speak directly to that agreement, delivering, for example, the strengthened borrowing powers and the enhanced fiscal oversight of Scotland’s public finances that this fiscal framework provides for. Now that the last impediment to the Bill has been removed, we must focus on the powers that the Scottish Parliament is receiving. As the Secretary of State has said, the legislative consent motion has been passed by the Scottish Parliament.
	Given that today is the last day of the current Scottish Parliament, it would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to all the MSPs, from all parties, who have served since 2011. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will say a word or two about those MSPs, particularly Labour MSPs, who are retiring from the Scottish Parliament, having done so much in the process of getting this Bill here today. They include Hugh Henry, Duncan McNeil and Richard Simpson, who have served since 1999. There is my old university friend Richard Baker, who was first elected in 2003, and Margaret McDougall, Graeme Pearson and Drew Smith, who were elected in 2011. They all retire with our best wishes, especially Malcolm Chisholm, who was also a long-standing Member of this House. He retires leaving a distinguished record of public service to his constituents. We wish him well. It would also be remiss of me not to mention the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who is not in his place. The Scottish Parliament’s loss is this place’s gain. Are we not lucky indeed?
	With the passing of this Bill and the dissolution of the Scottish Parliament, we can today lay the old arguments of the referendum to rest, alongside any doubt that the vow has not been delivered. The conversation must now move on to how these powers are used—or not used in some cases. It is worth briefly reminding ourselves what those powers are, because they are considerable, and the Lords looked at them in great detail, for which we thank them. The Scottish Parliament has power over rates and bands of tax on all non-savings and non-dividend income. That means it can put taxes up or bring them down; it can increase or reduce the thresholds at which the different rates are paid; or it can choose to do nothing and keep things pretty much as they are, short of affording a tax break to higher earners—champions of the status quo perhaps—even if, in so doing, some people are abandoning a manifesto pledge to reintroduce the 50p rate for those earning over £150,000. That is what some have chosen to do, but that is not what we would do
	I wonder how commentators have looked on that particular process. Owen Jones, who is often quoted by the SNP Members now beside me, called it
	“a huge blow to their credentials”.
	What does the Scottish Trades Union Congress think of the Scottish Government’s grand plans for devolved taxation in Scotland? It calls them
	“a disappointingly timid approach to tax policy…Breaking the consensus on increasing the additional rate is difficult to fathom.”
	It said it was an approach that is
	“difficult to reconcile with the Scottish Government’s”
	so-called
	“social and economic objectives.”
	For the past five years, many people had the mantra “more power for Scotland.” Today, when the Bill is passed, we will have a powerful Scottish Parliament—power not as a point of principle, but power to be used for positive, progressive change. I can tell the House, in no uncertain terms, that the Scottish Labour party will not settle for power for power’s sake. We will not settle for the political choice of austerity. This Bill goes straight to the heart of how we would do that. We will oppose austerity in the UK and we will oppose it in Scotland, and when we get into government we will reverse it. We will build a better and fairer Scotland for all, and taxation will not be our sole tool for doing so.
	Lords amendment 22 strengthens the borrowing powers available to the Scottish Government, as agreed in the fiscal framework, allowing them to invest more in capital infrastructure or to smooth out fluctuations in devolved taxes.
	In short, with those amendments and powers, the Scottish Parliament will have the power radically to reshape the social and political landscape in Scotland. As we all know, if we are to have the excellent public services and high standards of living enjoyed by countries in other parts of the world, we must have the revenues to pay for them, and that means making bold decisions.
	Scottish Labour has already begun to set out how it would use the new powers that are coming to Scotland, along with those that Scotland already has, to maintain and increase levels of investment in education and public services. A Scottish Labour Government will depart from the discredited political doctrine of austerity and increase public spending over the lifetime of the next Scottish Parliament. We will be bold, and we will be radical, because that is the only way to really change people’s lives. We understand that having power is pointless if we are not prepared to use it. It is a shame that others—the Conservative Government and the SNP Scottish Government—will go into this election with a powerful Parliament offering a pale imitation of the status quo. After the blood, sweat and tears of getting this Bill on to the statute book, that is unfortunate. Faced with the choice between using the powers of the Scottish Parliament to invest in our economy or carrying on with the SNP’s cuts to schools, Labour will use those powers.
	In the course of our consideration of the Bill, the Labour party has focused on securing practical, progressive changes to it. Where we felt it fell short of the Smith commission, we have sought to improve it. Where there has been disagreement, we have not declaimed noisily from the rafters, but sought to reach compromise. In adopting that approach, we have won valuable concessions from the Government—changes to the Bill that will make a real, practical difference to Scotland.
	In this place, we secured the power to create new benefits in devolved areas, and we elicited welcome clarity on the application and extent of the provisions to top up existing benefits. That will allow the Scottish Parliament, effectively, to design a new social security system to suit the needs of Scotland. Given last week’s Budget, thank goodness it has that power.
	In the other place, we campaigned successfully, as the Secretary of State said, for an amendment to the Bill to devolve competence over pavement parking to the Scottish Parliament. If hon. Members remember, it was the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) who mentioned the issue on Second Reading in this place. The amendment marked the culmination of a lengthy process that started with a private Member’s Bill introduced by the former Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, Mark Lazarowicz, several years ago. I would point those who think that the amendment is a minor measure to the many charities—most prominently, Living Streets and Guide Dogs UK—that campaigned hard and long to secure it. I thank them today for their unstinting efforts.
	Pavement parking is dangerous for pedestrians, especially people with sight loss, parents with pushchairs, and wheelchair users and other disabled people. By securing the amendment, we have cleared the way for the Scottish Parliament to take legislative measures to protect those people and to increase the safety of our streets.
	The Government’s other amendments in the Lords are merely technical and tidying-up provisions, and we do not, of course, oppose any of them.
	I would like to close by thanking those who have brought us to this juncture. The former Prime Minister deserves our thanks—it was his vow, which was itself a product of his passion for Scotland, that paved the way for the process that created the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) also deserves our thanks for pushing forward with the vow and making sure we secured the new powers for Scotland in the legislative programme. In this place, I would also like to thank the Secretary of State and his team. He has always been an affable adversary and has shown a willingness to work constructively to improve the Bill. In particular, his staff deserve great credit for the way in which they have helped us navigate the Bill.
	I thank Labour’s shadow Scotland team, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who is not in his place today, due to illness. He has been invaluable in his willingness to step into the breach, even when the debate was at its fiercest. I give special thanks to the Clerks in the House of Commons Public Bill Office for their support and, more importantly, their patience, and to the impartial experts in the House of Commons Library. In the other place, I thank my right hon. Friend Lord McAvoy for leading on the Bill for the Opposition in such an energetic manner. I also thank my right hon. Friends Lord McFall and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock for their learned advice and support.
	I would like to mention the Law Society of Scotland, which I worked with on a number of amendments, and which was always ready with an expert and impartial perspective. Michael Clancy of the Law Society—this is an interesting diversion and something we have not experienced before now—has sat under the Gallery in both this and the other place for every single Scotland Bill sitting since 1997, but he had to leave to catch his flight this evening so he has been unable to watch these proceedings and has missed the very last sitting. [Hon. Members: “It’s not the last!”] It is certainly the last sitting on this Bill; I am sure that everyone can agree with that. We wish him well and thank him for his advice. I also thank Lord Smith of Kelvin and the commissioners of all parties who played an integral role in the process.
	It may not feel like it, but this is a historic day for Scotland that will fundamentally change its social and political landscape. All we have to do now is make use of these substantial powers. We take up that challenge. It is now up to others to do the same.

Angus Robertson: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). It is a calumny that he has been described as negative. He spent much of his time at the Dispatch Box trying to be positive about the Scotland Bill. Parts of his speech were positive and we welcome that, and we also welcome the Secretary of State’s positive comments.
	The Scotland Bill is an important step in extending the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and in Scotland’s journey towards greater self-government. That journey has quickened in pace since the Scottish National party was first returned to power in 2007. The Bill follows progress including the Scotland Act 2012, the independence referendum and the Smith commission itself. As Deputy First Minister John Swinney has said, the Bill delivers additional powers that can benefit the people of Scotland, including extended powers over tax, new powers over welfare, and responsibilities for the Crown Estate, tribunals and the licensing of onshore oil and gas activity.
	The agreement on a fiscal framework published on 25 February increases the Scottish Parliament’s financial responsibility, is consistent with the Smith principles of no detriment, and is fair to the people of Scotland. As the Bill, including the amendments under discussion, provides useful powers and has moved towards delivering more of the recommendations made by the Smith commission reports, and as the agreement on the fiscal framework would be a fair basis for future funding consistent with the principles agreed by the Smith commission, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. On 11 March 2016, the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its report on the Scotland Bill and the fiscal framework. Although it makes recommendations on specific policy areas, its overall conclusion is that the Scottish Parliament should consent to the Bill. That is what is before us. On 16 March, the Scottish Parliament consented to the legislative consent motion for the Bill.
	The SNP has, of course, governed in Scotland for nine years, and every indication is that the people of Scotland have been delighted with the governance of Scotland under the SNP. I join the Labour party spokesman in paying tribute, as I did earlier today, to every outgoing Member of the Scottish Parliament—not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond)—of all political parties, who have worked hard to achieve the best governance that decision-making closer to home can bring.
	The outgoing Scottish Government have already acted with pace and creativity, in consultation with others, to be ready to use the limited powers—there are, of course, limits on the powers that are being devolved. That includes introducing a social security Bill within the first year of the new Scottish Parliament, to support the transfer and administration of Scotland’s new, devolved social security benefits. It also includes enhancing opportunities for employment and inclusive economic growth by improving support for people to move into employment through reform of the Work programme and linking employment programmes with training and education.
	The outgoing Scottish Government have also committed to abolishing fees for employment tribunals, to reduce the burden of air passenger duty by 50%, and to promote equalities by taking early action on gender balance on public boards. They have also set out longer-term intentions for further income powers, are committed to a progressive taxation policy and have applied that to decision on existing tax powers. Commencement of most of the new powers will take place in 2016, but new arrangements for the use of major new powers on matters including tax and welfare will not be in place before April 2017 following scrutiny of the proposals by the Scottish Parliament.
	On 11 March 2016, the Scottish Parliament’s Devolution (Further Powers) Committee published its final report and gave its unanimous recommendation that legislative consent be given to the Scotland Bill. That was described as
	“a significant milestone in a remarkable political process”
	by Committee convener Bruce Crawford MSP. I pay tribute to him and his colleagues on the Committee, as I do to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, for their work. Although the Scotland Bill and the Smith commission could have delivered more effective and coherent powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Bill provides useful additional powers in important areas such as taxation and social security.
	The UK Government amended the Bill to reflect some of the comments of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament and its Committees. With an agreed fiscal framework that increases the Scottish Parliament’s responsibility and protects the Barnett formula, the Scottish Government recommended that the Scottish Parliament consent to the Scotland Bill. The final report of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee also had some important things to say:
	“There are still some areas where we feel that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and substance of Smith…Nevertheless, the Bill has been improved during its passage through our detailed scrutiny and we welcome the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been prepared to listen to the evidence we have presented and improve the Bill in other areas…in our view, on the basis of the information provided to date by both governments, we are prepared to endorse the fiscal framework underpinning the powers to be devolved to Scotland as part of this Bill. Therefore, on balance, we recommend that the Scottish Parliament gives its legislative consent to the Scotland Bill.”
	UK Government amendments that implement more of the Smith report, including the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, are welcome. However, it needs to be said that the Scotland Bill continues to fall short of the spirit and the substance of Smith in some areas, including the devolution of employment programmes and the future operation of the legislative consent provision. It is important to understand that the UK Government can still effectively veto the exercise of devolved powers over universal credit by inserting their own date for the changes to commence. The social security provisions on discretionary payments and assistance are still subject to restrictions, notably for those who are under sanctions. The Smith report was clear that the Scottish Parliament should have complete autonomy over devolved benefits. The Scotland Bill is many things, but it is not federalism or near-federalism. Anybody who understands the powers of the German or Austrian Länder knows that to be true. It is an improvement, and it is progress.
	We in the SNP thank all in the Scottish Government who have been involved, especially John Swinney. We also thank those on the UK Government side, even though—this is an important rider—I see that there is a Minister from the Treasury on the Treasury Bench, and we all know that the Treasury wanted a fiscal framework that would have made Scotland worse off by £7 billion. Thank goodness for the efforts of John Swinney and colleagues in the Scottish Government. I would like to take the opportunity to thank my SNP MP colleagues, who have worked so hard on the Bill throughout the parliamentary process. In fairness, it is also right to place on record the fact that Members in the other place spent a lot of time on the Bill.
	Most importantly, I thank all those in Scotland who have believed in more powers. They did not draw lines in the sand or say, “This far, and no further”, as others have done, even in the recent past. Thanks to all those yes voters and all those SNP voters, Westminster has had to take note. This is just the latest stage on Scotland’s journey, and there will be many more. We agree with the amendments, and we wish the Bill to proceed. That is exactly what will happen today.

David Mundell: I will not detain the House for long, but I want to respond briefly to some of the points that have been made.
	I add my best wishes to all Members of the Scottish Parliament who are leaving at this election, particularly my colleagues and others who were elected to the Scottish Parliament alongside me back in 1999. A number of people who have served in Parliament throughout that period are leaving, and others who are standing in the election will be leaving, although not necessarily of their own accord. We should wish them well.
	I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and the right hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) for what they said about Scotland Office officials. They will both recognise that the Scotland Office is a small team, and bringing the Bill together, along with 10 other Whitehall Departments, has been a very significant undertaking for the Scotland Office. I pay particular tribute to the Bill team, who have navigated us to this point.
	I also pay tribute to Michael Clancy and his efforts on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland. All Scottish Members, including the new ones at the last election, will have come to see Michael as one of the most dogged pursuers of improved legislation across the gamut of what affects Scotland in this place. I very much welcome his involvement.
	My test for the Bill was the views of Lord Smith of Kelvin. He has been absolutely clear that, with the amendments made to the Bill on Report and with the fiscal framework as negotiated, the Bill fully meets the Smith commission recommendations. That is the test—the objective test—that should be applied to the Bill.
	I welcome the contribution that all Members have made, particularly in Committee. We have had some lively discussions on the Floor of the House. I very much welcome the work of the Devolution (Further Powers) Committee in the Scottish Parliament. I have said in correspondence with Bruce Crawford—I am happy to put this on the record in this Parliament—that its scrutiny of the Bill has been exemplary and has contributed significantly to improving it. We of course recognise the detailed scrutiny of the Bill in the other place.
	The Bill is now on the final stage of its journey, so it is appropriate briefly to consider what lies ahead. The co-operation between Scotland’s two Governments and Parliaments that has underpinned the Scotland Bill and fiscal framework will be fundamental to the success of the work that now needs to take place to implement the new powers. Last week, the Deputy First Minister and I discussed the initial plans for the transfer of powers following commencement, and I will continue that dialogue with the Scottish Government immediately after the Holyrood elections.
	To date, both Governments have agreed that the full devolution of income tax rates and thresholds for non-savings and non-dividend income will commence in April 2017. Air passenger duty will be devolved in April 2018, and the implementation dates for welfare will be agreed by the joint ministerial working group on welfare. The majority of the remaining provisions will be commenced either on Royal Assent or two months after Royal Assent.
	Political discourse in Scotland is already changing as a result of the Bill, moving on from a debate on process to one about how the powers will be used. I am expecting a lively debate during coming weeks about how these powers should be used for the benefit of the people of Scotland. I look forward to working further, after the elections, with the Scottish Government to ensure their smooth and effective transfer. I urge the House to accept the Lords amendments.
	Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 2 to 62 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 22.

Bill Cash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993—the Maastricht Act of Parliament —there is a requirement on the Government:
	“Before submitting the information required in implementing Article 103(3) of the Treaty…to report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure”. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. This is a serious point of order to which I hope Members will want to attend. If they do not, they can always pursue their enthusiasms elsewhere. I want to listen to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, as should those on the Treasury Bench.

Bill Cash: As the Minister knows, that provision concerns convergence criteria, and stability and growth factors. The trouble is that the document we have been given, entitled, “2014-15 Convergence Programme for the United Kingdom: submitted in line with the Stability and Growth pact”, contains in pages 141 to 145 a detailed assessment of the position on welfare caps and other spending, including matters relating to disability benefits and personal independence payments, about which there has been a great deal of controversy over the past few days.
	I therefore submit to you, Mr Speaker, that it is impossible for the Government to be able to submit that document, which has now been significantly changed as a result of the controversy of the past few days, and it is therefore inappropriate for them to proceed with this debate. What is your view?

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which I think I will describe as a conscientious effort at derailment of the Government’s intended programme of business. I say that not in a pejorative sense, as it is a perfectly legitimate attempt. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench, and other Government Members, are cognisant of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that they have followed the logic of his argument and the substance of his thesis. I am not altogether sure that all expressions on ministerial faces have been entirely comprehending of his point, even though it is pretty straightforward, but my advice to the hon. Gentleman is that if at the end of the debate he is dissatisfied, he will have to register that with his vote. He is saying that the terms of trade have changed, but that is often the case, and he should seek to catch my eye to develop his arguments more fully in the course of the debate.

Bill Cash: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am not sure that there is really a further point of order, but as it is the hon. Gentleman, I am minded to indulge him.

Bill Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to mention the ministerial code. After all, it is incumbent on Ministers to give accurate information to Parliament, and I wish to register that point.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has registered that point, although, as he will know, I am not responsible for the ministerial code. Others are, however, bound by it, and therefore have a responsibility to it. That point is on the record.

John Redwood: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether it would be sufficient for Ministers to report orally to the House on how they propose to amend the figures, which are clearly wrong.

Mr Speaker: It is entirely open to Ministers to do that in the course of the debate. I have no desire to steer the debate as that would be very wrong, but I have a hunch that if the Minister does not provide satisfaction on that front, he might be peppered with attempted interventions from either the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) or the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). We will leave it there for now.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

David Gauke: I beg move to move,
	That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.
	After four days of debating the Budget I am sure the whole House will welcome a further opportunity to debate the UK economy, given the information that will be provided to the Commission this year under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
	As in previous years, the Government inform the Commission of the UK’s economic and budgetary position as part of our participation in the EU’s stability and growth pact. The convergence programme explains the Government’s medium-term fiscal policies as set out in the 2015 autumn statement and Budget 2016. It also includes the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts. As such, it is based entirely on previously published documents that have been presented to Parliament. It is the content, not the convergence programme itself, that requires the approval of the House for the purposes of the 1993 Act.

David Nuttall: Will my hon. Friend explain, for the benefit of the House, what he understands by the meaning of the word “convergence”?

David Gauke: The important point here is that the United Kingdom is not obliged to converge with other EU member states. If I remember correctly, the terminology dates back to the Maastricht treaty, and this is a part of the process that originates from that. The UK is not subject to any sanctions as a consequence of our participation in this process, nor are we required to take any directions from the European Commission in respect of our economic policies.

John Redwood: But surely the purpose of tabling the numbers to the Commission is that it puts it under what it calls “surveillance”? It can then make an adverse report. It is very clear that the intention is that our budget deficit should never be more than 3% of GDP. I note that, for the first time in some time, the Government will at least get the budget deficit below 3%. I am in favour of doing that anyway, but is it not the case that they have to do that because that is what convergence is all about?

David Gauke: It is the case that the provision dates back to the Maastricht treaty—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) can provide further details on its history—which was incorporated into the European Union (Amendment) Act 1993. That requires us to submit a report. The important point for the House is that this does not give the European Commission the ability to impose sanctions on the UK. I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend that the UK should not have excessive deficits, but that is a matter ultimately decided by this House, this Parliament and the elected Government of the United Kingdom.

Bill Cash: I know my hon. Friend listened to what I said in my point of order, so I would like to address the point to him personally. Section 5 states:
	“Her Majesty’s Government shall report to Parliament for its approval”—
	on the basis that it is accurate—
	“an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary position”.
	It is absolutely clear, unless he can tell me that this document was prepared since the controversy of the past few days, that this cannot be accurate and nor can it be a proper assessment. To report to Parliament something that is not accurate is quite an important and rather difficult problem for the Minister, is it not? What measures will he take to correct the position, so that Parliament can approve it on the basis of an accurate assessment?

David Gauke: I will return to that point later, but let me address it in short now. The information provided to the Commission under this process is and has always been based on information already published. It is not a new exercise. We do not ask the OBR to go through the process once again. It is required to produce its documentation and make its assessments at the times of Budgets and autumn statements, and we do not think that our requirement under European legislation is such that we should require the OBR to go through that process again.
	The essential position of the public finances remains the same. Notwithstanding the announcement on personal independence payments, it remains the case that from next year debt will be falling every year, that the deficit will be falling each and every year of this Parliament and that we will be in surplus in 2019-20. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would not be keen for us, as a consequence of this requirement—I suspect he is no enthusiast for our going through this process in the first place, but the fact is we have to go through it—

David Nuttall: Why?

David Gauke: Because that is what the law requires us to do.
	It would not seem proportionate, in these circumstances, to do anything other than submit documentation previously prepared by the OBR.

Bill Cash: I just want to put this to bed. I have made the point that the documentation cannot be accurate—unless my hon. Friend is going to tell me the Government have changed the figures since publication—but there is a second point. It appears from the figures, which can be a bit confusing for some people, that there is a black hole. Some people allege it is as much as £4 billion and others say it is only £1.3 billion—it relates specifically to PIP—but he will appreciate that it is not possible for the documentation to be accurate. This has nothing to do with the OBR as such—it is not the OBR report being submitted—but concerns the Government’s own assessment. Will he be kind enough to get that right? It is important that we are accurate.

David Gauke: Our principled approach over several years has been that the documentation provided to the Commission is based on the most recent publications. I do not think it would be sensible or proportionate to rerun elements of a Budget process purely for an EU audience. That would not be the right thing to do.

George Kerevan: On the accuracy of the information being transmitted to the Commission, there is another matter, which has not been brought up. The figures for February’s tax receipts have led to a significant increase in February borrowing. It is therefore impossible in the final month of the financial year for the Government to hit their declared target for borrowing. It will be greater than the target—so, again, the information is inaccurate.

David Gauke: Again, I make the same principled point. We provide information already published in these reports—we do not seek to amendment it—although the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point: should this be updated monthly in the light of public finance numbers? I would make a second point about the public finances, however. Having been in the Treasury for a little while now, I know that public finance numbers can be quite volatile, so one should take good news and bad on a monthly basis with a pinch of salt. It is only when one steps back that one has a good view of the overall position, and that is what the OBR does twice yearly.
	On the process, I remind the House that although the UK participates in the stability and growth pact, by virtue of our protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, we are required only to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits. The UK cannot be subject to any action or sanctions as a result of our participation in the pact. Following the House’s approval of the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme, the Government will submit that programme to the European Commission. The Commission is expected to make its recommendations to all EU member states in mid-May. These recommendations will then be agreed by Heads of State or Government at European Council.

David Nuttall: This process takes place, as we both know, every year, and we have this debate every year. What, however, is its purpose? What possible benefit is there in going through the motion or charade of submitting this document to Brussels every year? What are the benefits for this country and for my constituents?

David Gauke: Apart from the fact that the law requires us to do this, I would tell my hon. Friend that the UK has a proud record of structural reform. We are performing better than many other EU member states. To the extent that other such states are able to examine the measures that we have been taking to improve the performance of the UK economy and to the extent that they see it as an example well worth following, this will help to strengthen other EU member states’ economies, which might have a benefit to the constituents of my hon. Friend. The fact that we are leading the way as the fastest-growing major western economy means that we have a proud record. We should not be hiding our light under a bushel.
	Budget 2016 set out the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. In uncertain times and against a deteriorating global economic outlook, the Budget delivers security for working people. It takes the next bold steps in the Government’s long-term economic plan. The UK is forecast to grow faster than any other G7 economy this year, with employment at record highs. Against that, productivity growth is weaker than forecast, while globally the economic picture is less positive than it was six months ago.
	The OBR tells us that in every year of the forecast, our economy grows and so, too, does our productivity, but it has revised down growth in the world economy and in world trade. The OBR also notes concerns across the west about low productivity growth, and has revised down potential UK productivity growth. In the face of the new assessment of productivity and the slowing global economy, the OBR now forecasts that UK GDP will grow by 2% this year, 2.2% again in 2017 and then 2.1% in each of the three years after that.
	I shall not go through all the figures that have been debated at some length relating to the deficit and the debt, and I shall not go through all the Government’s measures. What is clear is that we are restoring our public finances, heading towards a surplus at the end of this Parliament and reducing the deficit year on year. I hope that the House will, in line with section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, approve the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme. I look forward to hearing this evening’s debate.

Rob Marris: I have to say that I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). I draw the House’s attention to the wording of the motion, which states:
	“That this House approves…the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement”.
	Even the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not accept the assessments made in the autumn statement, yet we are now going off to Brussels and—if the motion is passed; I hope it is not—saying that we accept them.
	I hope you will give me a little latitude, Mr Speaker, because I would like to start by setting the scene of where we are with our economy and looking at some of the history behind it. We must look at credibility. In the 2015 general election, Labour lacked economic credibility and people voted accordingly. It is true that most of the economic meltdown in the UK in 2008 was due to world factors such as the Lehman Brothers collapse and so forth. Let me try, however, to dispose of the myth to which some in Labour still cling—namely, that there were no real problems with the UK economy when the world economic meltdown occurred in 2008 and that all Labour’s economic problems thereafter were due solely to world factors.
	That analysis is just plain wrong, and most people know it. Most voters know that the Labour Government did great things to improve our society and our economy, but voters also know that Mr Gordon Brown made some fundamental economic mistakes—for example, the nonsense of his slogan “an end to boom and bust”, his light-touch regulation of the financial services sector, the disaster of the private finance initiative, and large deficits in the good times. Just before the world meltdown, the UK annual deficit was 3.1% of GDP.
	As I have said in the House before, Mr Brown arrogantly ignored the warnings that some of us gave him well before the crash. I am angry and sorry that he made those mistakes, because they meant that the UK economy was not as well placed as it should have been before the world crash. Even without them, the UK’s defences would have been overtopped when the financial tsunami came across the Atlantic, but not by so much. Today, our economy faces what the current Chancellor has described as world headwinds, and because of the current Chancellor’s own mistakes, the UK is far worse placed to withstand those headwinds than it was in 2008, when the world tsunami hit. The national debt expressed as a percentage of GDP, for example, is far higher than it was in 2008, and it is now rising.

Bill Cash: In the light of the strictures that the hon. Gentleman has imposed on his former Prime Minister, may I just mention that the national debt, which is currently regarded as being about £1.5 trillion, rises to between £3 trillion and £4 trillion if, for instance, Network Rail and the pension liabilities are taken into account? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is the real position?

Rob Marris: Network Rail should be included; future pension liabilities should not.
	The Chancellor is fond of saying that the current Government and the last coalition Government have fixed the roof while the sun was shining, and that Labour failed to do so. Well, only 20% of infrastructure projects have been started over the last six years. Under Labour Governments we had many more hospitals and schools, and we also had the £12 billion decent home programmes for doing up social housing. As a result, there was a great deal more social housing, including housing association and council properties, than there has been under the current Conservative Government and the coalition.
	I welcome the creation of 2 million more jobs since 2010—that is the jewel in the Chancellor’s crown—but it has been bought with a sea of debt, a point to which I shall return. The proportion of part-time workers in the work force has remained broadly the same for the last 10 years, but there is concern about the growth of zero-hours contracts, although I must say that that concern is sometimes overblown. There is also concern about regional imbalances between London and the rest of the country, although I am pleased to say, as a west midlands Member, that they have lessened somewhat in the last two years. However, according to the Office for National Statistics, median gross weekly earnings in the United Kingdom fell by about 4.5% in real terms under the coalition Government.
	A theme of the Chancellor’s Budget statement was
	“We choose to put the next generation first.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2016; Vol. 607, c. 951.]
	What happened about student fees and loans in England? What happened about the abolition of the education maintenance allowance in England? What happened about the spiralling cost of housing in the last six years because the Government singularly failed to address that issue, thereby increasing intergenerational imbalance?
	What happened about this Government’s selling of a record amount of state assets this year? Those assets could have gone to the next generation. What happened about this Government’s carrying on with the disastrous policy of PFI? And what happened about the deficit and the national debt?
	We were told that the deficit was not going to be eliminated by 2015. Well, these things happen. Is it going to be eliminated by 2020? Barely any commentators besides the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself believe that. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury says this evening that we are doing better than other member states. I have to tell him that that is not true. In the G7, for example, our deficit compared with those of the other seven states is the sixth worst. Only Japan is worse. In 2014, the deficit in Greece—poor old meltdown Greece—was less as a proportion of GDP than the deficit in the United Kingdom. In 2015, according to the International Monetary Fund, they will be the same. That is not a great example to set.
	The changes, positive as they may be, with some anaemic growth and considerable growth in employment, have been bought on a sea of debt. Government spending is out of control. Let us look at the national debt. I am grateful to the economist Richard Murphy for providing me with these historical figures. In 2014 prices, the average borrowing by Labour Governments for each year in office since the war was £26.8 billion. The figure for Conservative Governments was £33.5 billion. The average borrowing, in 2014 prices, for each year in office excluding the period since the world crash in 2008—it could be argued to be unfair to the last Labour Government and the Conservative-led Governments to include that period—was £17.8 billion for Labour Governments and £20.6 billion for Conservative Governments.
	Let us look at the percentage of years in which debt was repaid by Governments since the war. Part of the national debt was repaid in a quarter of post-war Labour Government years; the same happened in 10% of Tory Government years since the war. Let us now look at the total repayments of the national debt made by respective Governments, in 2014 prices. Conservative Governments have managed to pay off £19.9 billion of the national debt. Labour Governments, who have far more economic credibility, have paid off £108.8 billion. This Government’s spending is out of control. The national debt is up two thirds in six years, and this year it is forecast to increase slightly as a percentage of GDP.
	It is a good thing that Mr Brown kept the United Kingdom out of the euro. Had he not done so, we would be in special measures big time under the terms of the growth and stability pact. The treaty defines excessive budget deficits as those that are greater than 3% of GDP. The current Chancellor has failed that test six years running, and on current forecasts—they could of course change next week—he is set to scrape in under the wire at 2.9% this year. The other element of the definition of excessive budget deficits under the growth and stability pact is that public debt is considered excessive if it is greater than 60% of GDP. It should also be falling by 5% per year on average over a three-year rolling period. The current Chancellor is on track to fail that test 10 years running.
	The Chancellor is borrowing on the credit card to pay the day-to-day bills. He is also borrowing on a mortgage to buy bricks and mortar. That is fine for infrastructure— that is what Labour would do and it is what many families do. We borrow on a mortgage to pay for the bricks and mortar, but we should not borrow on the credit card to pay the day-to-day bills.
	This Chancellor has been in office for six years and it is time that he took some responsibility. Frankly, it is wearisome, juvenile and harmful to our economy to keep blaming the previous Labour Government. I urge all Members of the House to vote against the motion tonight.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will just point out for the benefit of the House that we have an hour and four minutes of the debate left, which should be enough.

Bill Cash: I have already made my point about the inaccuracy embedded in the report and need not repeat any of that; I am sure that the Minister heard what I said. In a way, it is an impossible situation for him, but that does not remedy the inaccuracy and I need to hear what the Government propose to do. It may be inconvenient or fortuitous, but the reality is that it is there. The approval by Parliament of these documents for the purposes of onward submission to the European Commission simply cannot be conducted on the basis of the documents under consideration. I will now park the issue, but I am inclined to vote against the Government this evening on account of the inaccuracy, because it just does not make sense. If the Minister wants to, I will be glad if he tries to put things right in some manner, even if only orally, but he may be unable to do so. It is perhaps just as well if I leave things as I have just stated.
	What I really want to refer to is the question of national debt, which I mentioned in an intervention. The problem is that the stability and growth pact, the convergence criteria and the 3% are important because they are the basis upon which countries decide whether to run their economies in line with European law or to be cavalier, and there are massive problems in the European Union relating to all that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned that we are just about on the cusp of 3% at the moment, but that is simply not the case in other countries, which raises an important question. For example, the Italians are in dire trouble and are in an enormous battle to try to get some wiggle room into the stability and growth pact, which has led to extremely bad relations with Germany.
	If one looks at what happened in 2003-04, however, nobody blinked an eye when it suited Germany to play around with the pact and not comply with its provisions. Italy is in difficulties and Greece remains in monumental difficulties, infringing the rule of law in Europe as expressed in the stability and growth pact and the convergence criteria, but Germany insists that everybody else obeys the rules until it does not suit it to do so. I find that difficult to accept. In fact, I do not accept it; I reject it. Either there is a rule of law or there is not. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of talk in the European Union about the rule of law, but unfortunately Germany does pretty much what it wants

John Redwood: I remind my hon. Friend that, even today, when Germany would say that she is very virtuous in having no budget deficit, she still has a much bigger proportion of debt to GDP than the 60% criterion and no obvious means of getting back down there.

Bill Cash: My right hon. Friend is, of course, right about that, as he really understands all these things. There are massive problems with the whole of this European project, not only because of the inconsistencies but because of the laying down of requirements and obligations that are, in effect, disregarded when it suits certain countries but not when it suits others. The performance required under section 5 relates not only to the accuracy of the figures, to which I have already referred, but to social, economic and environmental goals, as set out in article 2 of the treaty, and a range of submissions in respect of article 103, which deals with economic growth, industrial investment, employment and the balance of trade.
	I am happy to agree that the Conservative Government have managed to retrieve the appalling situation that faced us before 2010, but that does not alter the fact that we are talking about a debt level of £1.5 trillion when it is actually very much more than that. I have suggested that if we include the pension liabilities, it could be as much as £3 trillion to £4 trillion. One really has to take that on board, because if someone who was running a company conveniently parked an element of required debt, the auditors would never give them a clean bill of health. I do not see how pension liabilities can legitimately be off balance sheet, given the scale of this debt and the fact that all those public pensions have to be paid.
	I want to move away from that issue, and I would be interested if the Minister would be good enough to refer to one these points in his reply, if he has time. I want to refer now to another aspect of this paper being presented to Parliament for its approval. Page 19 is headed: “Economic opportunities and risks linked to the UK’s membership of the European Union”. What follows on the whole of the page is a litany of reasons why we should stay in the EU. All the arguments of those who say, as I do, that we should leave are dismissed, and I find it tendentious. I have already criticised the three White Papers on the grounds that they lack accuracy and impartiality, which I was promised by the Minister for Europe when I put the point to him during a ping-pong between the Lords and the Commons on the duty to provide information under sections 6 and 7 of the European Referendum Act 2015. Yet, here we are, confronted with exactly the same problem. It is not just that there is inaccuracy embedded in this document, which I am bound to say I do not think the Government can get out of, but there is inaccuracy that conflicts with the provisions of those sections. There is a real list of problems here.
	I should also mention the reference on page 19 to the virtues of the single market. I voted for the Single European Act in 1986 but I did table an amendment to say, in effect, that nothing in the Act shall derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Things have moved on enormously since those difficult days, because if I table an amendment now to preserve the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, you, Mr Speaker, will allow it to be debated, and the Clerks of the House of Commons will not raise the difficulties that I was faced with then. In a nutshell, I was told by the then Speaker, and indeed by the Clerk of Public Bills, that I was not allowed to move such an amendment—it was as bad as that. Mr Enoch Powell came up to me in the Lobby and said, “I see that you have put down this amendment, and I agree with you.” As in so many other matters relating to economics, he was not exactly wrong.
	Basically, this reference to the single market has to be weighed against whether or not it has achieved its objectives. Page 19 says that the single market is full of virtue and is entirely necessary for the United Kingdom.
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 15).

Business of the House

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15 and 41A(3)),
	That, at this day’s sitting,-
	(1) Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply in respect of Questions on:
	(a) the motion in the name of Mr David Gauke relating to Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993; and
	(b) the motion in the name of Chris Grayling relating to Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance); and
	(2) proceedings on the motion in the name of Chris Grayling relating to Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—
	(Julian 
	Smith
	.)
	Question agreed to.

SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993

Debate resumed.
	Question again proposed.

Bill Cash: I wish to put on the record again the position with regard to the single market, and I would really like the Minister, for whom I have a lot respect, to answer my question, which I have put over and over again. It is based on figures from the Office for National Statistics and the House of Commons Library.
	There is no disputing the fact that we run a trade deficit on current account transactions—imports and exports and good and services—of £58 billion a year, which is a lot of money. That £58 billion deficit is with the other 27 states of the European Union. In a nutshell, we run a loss of £58 billion a year, and I do not regard that as small change. However, Germany runs a surplus of £67 billion with the same 27 member states. If someone can tell me that that is a single market that we need, I would like to hear them repeat it from the Dispatch Box, because it cannot be in our interests.
	Furthermore, if we take that same criterion of current account transactions, we run a surplus of well over £36 billion with respect to the rest of the world, and that is selling the same goods and services. Clearly, therefore, there is nothing wrong with our goods and services, but such trade does not work for us in the way that it could and should when we are dealing with the European Union and the single market.

John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend agree that £12 billion of the £58 billion deficit with the European Union is the money that we have to send to it and that we do not get back? It is payment in order to buy its imports. One does not normally have to make a contribution to a country in order to import things from it.

Bill Cash: It has been said in the past that the House of Commons is the only lunatic asylum that is run by the inmates, but I think we pale into insignificance compared with the European Union. This just does not work. I ask the Minister to make a note on the piece of paper in front of him to remember to answer my question relating to that deficit and surplus issue, because every time I raise it, I get no answer. Although I agree that we will continue to trade and to co-operate with Europe—we want to do so and they want to do it with us—when it comes to this question of the need to stay in the single market, it simply does not stack up. This document is put forward for approval by Parliament, so we are entitled to an answer to that question.

George Kerevan: In case the Minister does not answer, let me say that a sizeable proportion of the imports that Britain takes from the EU are in fact intermediate products, such as automotive parts, that go into goods that we then re-export. We are talking about supply chain interconnection, not free-standing goods.

Bill Cash: I can only refer to the fact that these are ONS figures. They are endorsed and verified by the House of Commons Library, and I will leave my point at that.
	The argument on page 19 moves forward to a suggestion that any
	“new relationship which gives the UK…access to the single market that it needs”—
	that assertion continues to be made—
	“would involve contributing financially to the EU”,
	which we are certainly doing to the very substantial extent of about £10 billion a year, and
	“accepting the free movement of people”.
	The European Scrutiny Committee has been trying to have a debate on that for the best part of 18 months, but without success. I had a meeting with the Minister about it only today. That goes right to the heart of the viability of free movement and the immigration that flows from it. The argument continues:
	“and adopting EU rules without having any say over them.”
	I repeat: without any say over them.
	Today, the European Scrutiny Committee embarked on an investigation into the influence it is claimed we have and the manner in which decisions are taken in the European Union. This document implies that, somehow or other, we have massive input. The European ombudsman is looking into the question of trilogues, but within the decision-making process of the Council of Ministers it is horrendous to observe the extent to which votes are not taken. The so-called consensus on all matters, including those dealt with on page 19, is arrived at without a proper degree of accountability—in fact, I would say no real accountability of any kind. Decisions are taken in what I would describe as a Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code” situation, in which the Illuminati—otherwise known as COREPER—make deals behind the closed doors of unsmoke-filled rooms. We do not know and cannot find out how the decisions are arrived at. There is no agenda; nobody knows who decided what and on what basis. It is an affront to the democracy of this country that the decisions that affect the daily lives of everyone in it in respect of the whole gamut of European rule making are made almost entirely without majority voting taking place, in COREPER. It is deeply offensive. It is a black hole and the European Scrutiny Committee is looking into it.
	Finally, page 19 talks about productivity. All I would say on that is that, as I understand it, the OBR, whose report is contained in this document, says that the biggest problem this country has is lack of productivity.
	The whole of our economic performance is being presented to the European Commission for approval under the 1993 Act and to Parliament for approval today. I will not vote in favour of the motion and I certainly will not approve this load of rubbish. I will vote against the Government because I do not believe that page 19 is true or accurate. I do not agree that the basis of the statistics relating to PIP is such that the document is sufficiently valid to be presented to Parliament. It is a serious matter. We have become far too accustomed to saying, “Oh well, it’s just a blip—just a slight mistake. Someone got something wrong. Let’s not take too much notice of it.” Well, I am going to take notice of it and I shall vote against the Government this evening on that account.

John Redwood: I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about page 19 and that is the main reason I have entered this debate. It is an unfair exposition on the opportunities and risks linked to our membership of the European Union and I do not think it accurately reflects what the OBR has been saying. I am pleased that the OBR has now spoken for itself and put on the record the important point that it does not believe that in the five-year forecast period, were we to leave, there would be a decline in economic output or activity. Like many forecasters, the OBR believes that the net impact would be quite small. Of course, in line with others it has said that there could be volatility in currency and asset price markets. All I would add is that there has been massive volatility in those markets in the years we have been a member of the EU, so it would be somewhat outrageous to claim that that would suddenly stop were we to leave the EU, but I cannot see that it is a particularly damning point.
	My hon. Friend has gone on at some profound length about what is wrong with page 19. I hope Ministers will look again and realise that it is not a fair exposition of the OBR’s position. Linking the OBR’s position with Christine Lagarde’s comment, which is obviously a comment made for the “stay inside” campaign trail rather than for normal commentary purposes, gives a misleading impression.
	I wish to make some more fundamental points about the figures and the document before us this evening. Let us start with why we are doing this at all. It is a completely pointless exercise, but it is legally required by the treaty and the framework of law under which we live. It is a great pity that in the renegotiation this, along with dozens of other things, was not sorted out because if, as the Minister says, the Government can ignore the advice and the policy laid down by the European Union to control the deficit and get the debt down, what is the point of the Government having to table 300 pages of carefully selected documentation, go through the surveillance procedure, on some occasions receive a report saying that their policy is not good enough or they are not converging in the way that the European Union wishes, and the Government then saying, “Well, fortunately, there is no penalty on us so we will ignore that”?
	It is strange to belong to a club, accept the rules and then, when we do not like the rules, say, “Of course, we didn’t really want any of that and fortunately we have been opted out of the penalty bit of it.” It is a strange exercise. I suspect that the official machine of the Government, which goes on whoever is in office, is quite guided by all this. There is probably a wish on the part of officials to get the British Government policy and the figures closer to the convergence requirements. It is high time the European Union itself had an honest debate about the most pressing and most difficult target it has set—the target that all member states should keep their stock of debt to 60% of their national income.
	Practically every member state is way above that, and some of them violate the target by having more than double the level set down by the European Union. Why does that body think it is sensible to persevere with a target that none of the member states wish to keep and none of them are trying to reach?

George Kerevan: May I add that the rule that sets the 60% target also states that member states in breach must have a rectification programme and bring their debt level, whatever it is, down by five percentage points a year, which this Government have significantly failed to do and significantly will fail to do for a long, long time?

John Redwood: All the Governments are failing to do that, and it is even more pressing and difficult for a country such as Greece, where the penalties do apply because it is in the euro scheme. Despite all the best efforts of the European leadership, the European Central Bank and others, and very cruel and difficult expenditure cuts that Members in this House would not have accepted for the United Kingdom, Greece is still miles off getting anywhere near the stock-of-debt target and it has struggled until recently to get down to the deficit target.
	We need to ask fundamental questions of our European partners about why we go through this routine and what malign influence it has on some economies and some economic performances around the European Union, which should be a matter of common concern all the time we remain in that body. The Minister says this is not a new exercise and it is not much of a burden on the British state; it is just one of those things, and we send in figures that we produce for other purposes. That is not quite true. The introduction to the document clearly has to be written, the selection has to be made, it is clear throughout the document that it is written for domestic purposes and for the purpose of forwarding it to the European Union, and we try to produce figures that we would not otherwise produce in order to conform with the workings of the European Union.
	Next, I would like to highlight the figure for the convergence criteria and the so-called treaty deficit on page 186 of the report. That shows that in 2016-17, if all goes well and these figures work out, for the first time in many years we will get below the 3% target to 2.9%. That makes my point: we would not have to calculate that treaty deficit, think that it was significant or use it as part of the guidance for the British economy if we were not signed up to this surveillance and management system within the European Union. The Minister has to bear it in mind that there is actually some subtle guidance in the European policy. I think that many of my constituents would find it quite surprising that we have to table 300 pages of detailed financial and economic information in order to comply, and that that is then put through a scrutiny and surveillance process.
	The next figure that I would like to highlight is on page 156, which shows how much in “expenditure transfers” we have to make to the European Union institutions—in other words, how much money we send that we do not get back. We see that the November forecast for 2016-17 was £10.7 billion, which is a very considerable sum, and that the March forecast, just four months later, has gone up to £11.8 billion. Between the autumn statement and the current Budget there is an increase of £1.1 billion in next year’s expenditure transfers to the EU institutions.
	That figure of £1.1 billion is very close to the figure that the Government had pencilled in for disability cuts. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would rather not have the disability cuts and not pay £1.1 billion extra to the European Union. Why can we not make those kinds of choices? The reason, of course, is that we are signed up to membership of an organisation that thinks it knows better than we do how to spend our own money. I think that people in the United Kingdom are getting very frustrated at being told that we have to be very careful about our priorities, only to discover, if they get guidance from these complex figures, that the European Union can take £1.1 billion extra off us for next year without a by-your-leave. That leaves us struggling to find that money when we try to make the Budget add up, ending up with options and choices that I am sure Ministers did not really want to make, and which Parliament, in its wisdom, has decided should not be made.
	I draw the House’s attention to some very important figures on page 205 that the Government are sending to our European partners and masters about projected net migration into the United Kingdom. I was very happy to campaign with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the previous general election on a sensible and sensitive policy of controlled migration, wishing to get it down to the tens of thousands by the end of the Parliament. It was a very popular policy, because I think that people liked the idea that there would be a fair system offering sensible rules so that people could understand it before deciding whether or not to come to our country. Interestingly, the forecast that we are sending to the European Union shows that the level of migration will stay much higher than the Government’s target—it shows 256,000 in 2016, declining to 185,000 in 2021. There is also a further projection in which net migration stays considerably higher, actually above 250,000 in every year.
	I think that matters, because the Government’s intentions are very clear: they would like to get net migration well below these forecast figures. Why, then, is the forecast so high? I think that it is very simple: the forecast is that high because the European continental economies, particularly in the south of our continent, are performing very badly and have created mass unemployment on an extremely worrying scale, so the UK, which has a more successful economic policy that is generating a lot of jobs, is acting as a magnet for people who are otherwise without hope of employment.
	That policy is making it very difficult for the United Kingdom Government to hit their very popular target on migration. I hope that when this document is submitted Ministers will follow it up by pointing that out to the European Union and saying that they have a solemn promise to keep to the United Kingdom electors, who helped elect them to government, and that this set of EU policies, creating joblessness and therefore triggering a lot of foot-loose migration around the European Union, is making it very difficult to honour that promise.
	It also leads us to worry about the quality of some of these forecasts, because I am sure that the Government wish to get the level down, but there is a great danger that the variant of a much higher level has been put in, because actually that is what they are afraid will happen. I hope the Minister will consider that when he replies and that if we are going to go through the process of submitting our homework on economic matters to the European Union to be marked—by sending it 300 pages of figures—we will also say to it, “You are making it impossible for us to meet our legitimate wish to create more jobs to mop up unemployment in our country and to get wages up, as we would like to, because your failing economic policies in many parts of the euro area are bringing a number of migrants into our country that makes it impossible for us to meet our targets.”
	Those are just a few brief comments on an extremely complex set of documents and numbers, which show that, while we stay in this body, we need to engage much more and to get some change so that there is honesty in the targeting and an understanding of the damage that some of the targets and policies are creating. However, it will not be a surprise to hon. Members to learn that I think that the simplest thing would be for us to leave the European Union so that this is the last one of these documents we ever have to produce. We can then take control of our own money, banish austerity, spend the £10 billion on things that we want and leave the European Union free to get on with its political union, which is clearly what it will need to do to try to deal with the mass unemployment, the lack of cash transfers and the inadequacy of its regional policies.
	I hope tonight’s debate will be of use to the general public and that they will understand that we can take back control, spend our own money, and have prosperity, not austerity. That is what we will get if we leave the European Union.

David Gauke: The debate has addressed both the Budget and our membership of the European Union, so I am grateful to be on my feet at this point, and not later.
	Let me respond to some of the points that have been made. To come back to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about the numbers, it is important that the document is based on information that has been published in advance and that we do not produce a mass of separate information and documentation for the purposes of meeting this requirement.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) will be aware—indeed, he touched on this—the requirement goes back to the 1993 Act. We are complying with obligations in our domestic law to provide this information, and it is therefore right that we do so.
	The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about our trade deficit with the European Union brings me to the wider issue of our membership of the EU. I know that he shares with me a belief in free trade, and in transactions where there is a willing buyer and a willing seller, both parties benefit from the transaction. The point I would make in the context of our membership of the EU is that, whereas 44% of our exports go to the European Union, only 7% of the European Union’s exports come to the United Kingdom.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham mentioned the contributions we make to the EU. It is worth pointing out that, thanks to the deal secured by the Prime Minister, our net contributions—whether in cash terms, in real terms or as a proportion of GDP—are in fact falling.
	Let me turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris), who speaks as a shadow Treasury Minister. For the first time in the six years I have been a Treasury Minister, we have heard an apology from the Labour Front Bench for borrowing too much money before the crash. That is something the hon. Gentleman deserves some credit for, because, try as we might on many occasions, we never got one out of Ed Balls.
	The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government’s record on borrowing, but let us be clear: had we stuck with the structural deficit that we inherited, by 2020 we would have borrowed an additional £930 billion over 10 years. It is also worth pointing out that in May 2010, the International Monetary Fund forecast the UK to have had the largest budget deficit in the G20 that year. Between 2010 and 2016, the UK is forecast to have reduced its headline deficit at the second fastest rate in the G7—it is second only to the United States. The IMF forecasts that the UK will reduce its net debt as a share of GDP by more than any other G7 country between 2015 and 2020. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the problem is that we are borrowing too much money, perhaps he could explain why, time and again, the Labour party has opposed every measure we have taken to reduce the deficit.
	We have had a lively debate, and I hope the House will support and approve the motion.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 241, Noes 180.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.

ROYAL ASSENT

Lindsay Hoyle: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Riot Compensation Act 2016
	Access to Medical Treatments (Innovation) Act 2016
	NHS (Charitable Trusts Etc) Act 2016
	Scotland Act 2016.

Business without Debate

Opposition Parties (Financial Assistance)

Ordered,
	That, in the opinion of this House, the following provisions shall apply in respect of financial assistance to opposition parties:
	1. The Resolution of 26 May 1999 relating to financial assistance for opposition parties, as codified and modified by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 152D(3) (as set out in section 2 of Annex 2 of that Committee’s report to the House of March 2015 (HC 1132)), is amended as follows with effect from the beginning of 1 April 2016—
	(1) In paragraph 2.2, after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
	“This is subject to paragraphs 2.5A to 2.5C in the case of parties with no more than five Members of the House.”
	(2) In paragraph 2.3—
	(a) for “£16,956” substitute “£16,938”, and
	(b) for “£33.86” substitute “£33.83”.
	(3) In paragraph 2.4, for “the Retail Prices Index” (in both places) substitute “the Consumer Prices Index”.
	(4) In paragraph 2.5, for “this provision” substitute “the provision set out at paragraph 2.1 above”.
	(5) After paragraph 2.5 insert—
	“2.5A Paragraphs 2.5B and 2.5C apply in the case of an opposition party where there are no more than five Members of the House who—
	(a) are members of the party, and
	(b) were elected at the previous General Election after contesting it as candidates for the party.
	2.5B If the amount found under paragraph 2.2 above exceeds the amount corresponding to 150% of the relevant IPSA staffing budget for the period (“the maximum amount”), the amount of financial assistance given to the party under paragraph 2.1 in relation to that period must not exceed the maximum amount.
	2.5C If the amount found under paragraph 2.2 above is less than the amount corresponding to 50% of the relevant IPSA staffing budget for the period (“the minimum amount”), the amount of financial assistance which may be given to the party under paragraph 2.1 above in respect of the expenses incurred by the party in that period shall instead be the minimum amount.
	2.5D For the purposes of paragraphs 2.5B and 2.5C, “the relevant IPSA staffing budget” for a period is the standard annual staffing expenditure budget provided in relation to the period for a non-London area Member by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.”
	(6) In paragraph 2.9—
	(a) for “2015” substitute “2016”, and
	(b) for “£186,269” substitute “£186,073”.
	(7) In paragraph 2.10—
	(a) for “2015” substitute “2016”, and
	(b) for “£789,979” substitute “£789,146”.
	(8) In paragraph 2.11, for “paragraph 2.1” substitute “paragraph 2.10”.
	(9) For paragraph 2.13 and 2.14 substitute—
	“2.13 As soon as practicable, but no later than two months after 31 March each year, a party claiming financial assistance under the provisions set out at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11 above shall—
	(a) furnish the Accounting Officer of the House with the certificate of an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the Accounting Officer, to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party received financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred exclusively in relation to the party’s parliamentary business, and
	(b) publish accounts in relation to all such expenses, audited by an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee and in accordance with any requirements imposed by that Committee.
	2.13A The requirements that may be imposed under paragraph 2.13(b) are such requirements as the Committee considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling proper scrutiny of expenses in respect of which the party has received financial assistance under paragraph 2.1, 2.6 or 2.10 above, which may in particular include requirements for the audited accounts—
	(a) to contain details of such expenses during the period to which the report relates (“the reporting period”),
	(b) in the case of the Official Opposition—
	(i) to state the total remuneration (including benefits in kind) paid in respect of persons employed, or otherwise engaged, to assist the party (“relevant persons”) during the reporting period,(ii) to state each relevant person’s pay band, by reference to the pay bands specified by the Committee,(iii) if a relevant person is appointed to assist a particular Member, to identify that Member, and(iv) to identify each relevant person whose remuneration exceeds an amount specified by the Committee and to state the amount of that remuneration, and
	(c) in the case of any other opposition party, to identify the number of persons employed, or otherwise engaged, to assist the party during the reporting period who are within each of the pay bands specified by the Committee.
	2.14 If the requirements imposed by paragraph 2.13 above have not been complied with within the time specified, no further financial assistance under the provisions set out at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.11 above shall be paid until those requirements have been complied with.”
	2. (1) The Resolution of 8 February 2006 relating to financial support for representative business (as codified and modified by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 152D(3) (as set out in section 2 of Annex 2 of that Committee’s report to the House of March 2015 (HC 1132))) is amended as follows.
	(2) For paragraphs 2.21 and 2.22 substitute—
	“2.21 As soon as practicable, but no later than two months after 31 March each year, a party claiming financial assistance under paragraph 2.19 above shall—
	(a) furnish the Accounting Officer of the House with the certificate of an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the Accounting Officer, to the effect that all expenses in respect of which the party received financial assistance during the period ending with that day were incurred exclusively in accordance with paragraph 2.19 above, and
	(b) publish accounts in relation to all such expenses, audited by an independent professional auditor, in a form determined by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee and in accordance with any requirements imposed by that Committee.
	2.21A The requirements that may be imposed under paragraph 2.21(b) are such requirements as the Committee considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling proper scrutiny of expenses in respect of which the party has received financial assistance, and may in particular include requirements for the audited accounts—
	(a) to contain details of such expenses during the period to which the report relates, and
	(b) to identify the number of persons employed, or otherwise engaged, to assist the party during that period who are within each of the pay bands specified by the Committee.
	2.22 If the requirements imposed by paragraph 2.21 above have not been complied with within the time specified, no further financial assistance under paragraph 2.19 shall be paid until those requirements have been complied with.”
	3. (1) The House of Commons Members Estimates Committee shall—
	(a) consider the provisions of the Resolution of 26 May 1999 in the light of the proposed reduction in the number of Members of this House, and
	(b) before the end of the next session, report to the House its views on whether any changes ought to be made to that Resolution in respect of any period after the reduction is expected to take effect.
	(2) References in sub-paragraph (1) to the Resolution of 26 May 1999 are to the resolution of that date relating to financial assistance for opposition parties as codified and modified by the House of Commons Members Estimate Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 152D(3) (as set out in section 2 of Annex 2 of that Committee’s report to the House of March 2015 (HC 1132) and as amended by paragraph 1 of this Resolution).—(Chris Grayling.)

PETITION
	 — 
	HMRC Closure Walsall

Valerie Vaz: This is a petition of the residents of the United Kingdom, who declare that in November 2015 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the tax and revenue office, announced that the Walsall HMRC site will close in March 2017. This means that HMRC will no longer have a presence in Walsall. With the closure, over 60 permanent jobs will be lost from Walsall. There could be a loss of £1 million in the local economy. This loss will inevitably impact on businesses in the locality. The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge HMRC to reverse the decision to close the Walsall HMRC site and carry out a full public consultation exercise on this closure. A petition in similar terms has been signed by 500 people.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that in November 2015 Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) announced that the Walsall HMRC site will close in March 2017; further that HMRC will no longer have a presence in Walsall; further that this closure will result in over 60 permanent jobs losses in Walsall; further that this could lead to a loss of £1 million in the local economy; further that this loss will inevitably impact on businesses in the locality; and further that a local petition on a similar matter has been signed by 500 individuals.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HMRC to reverse the decision to close the Walsall HMRC site and carry out a full public consultation exercise on this closure.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001682]

Construction Companies (Fatal Accidents)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Julian Smith.)

Stephen Hepburn: I am pleased to have secured this debate on an important subject that is all too often ignored. Construction is the most dangerous industry in the UK. Indeed, the recent unplanned collapse and tragedy at Didcot power station highlighted the dangers faced by construction workers on a daily basis. Last year, 35 workers were killed. That is more than in any other industrial sector, but amazingly it was a record low for the construction industry. In recent years, there have been an average of 50 deaths a year in the construction industry—almost one a week. It is our duty to ensure that that level of loss of life does not continue.
	To achieve that, we need a Health and Safety Executive that is effective and dedicated to protecting workers, but sadly, the information that I have uncovered reveals that in the construction industry that is not occurring. Construction is an industry with inherent dangers, but it does not necessarily have to be inherently dangerous. Deaths and accidents largely occur because safety laws are deliberately ignored or flouted. Far too many companies involved in the construction industry are willing to break or bend safety rules to boost profits. In an industry where site organisation is low and there are not enough safety reps—partially as a result of the blacklisting scandal—it is imperative not only that the HSE does an effective job, but that it is seen to be doing its job effectively. Following a construction death, if a company or individual is at fault they must be prosecuted. The HSE’s own research found that in 70% of construction deaths, management failure caused or contributed to a worker losing their life.

Jim Shannon: In Northern Ireland we take a proactive approach to this issue, and the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland carries out surprise visits to construction sites to ensure that complacency does not ensue. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we want to sharpen the construction industry up a bit and make it more effective and accountable, that is a way of doing it?

Stephen Hepburn: That is also the policy on the mainland, but as I will reveal, sadly it is not as effective as it used to be.
	In 2007-08 the HSE was successful in prosecuting 51% of construction fatal accidents. By 2012-13 that figure had dropped to a mere—and disgraceful—35%. No blame should be placed on the legal system for failing to convict killer bosses. The HSE is successful in achieving a guilty verdict in more than 90% of all prosecution cases—an impressive figure. Put simply, if the HSE is failing to prosecute following construction deaths, and if there are not enough high-profile stories about the fines and penalties imposed on companies that cut corners to boost profits at the expense of a worker’s life, an ever greater number of companies will flout safety laws, safe in the knowledge that if a tragedy should occur they are unlikely to be punished. That is certainly not the end of my concerns about the HSE’s performance.

Steven Paterson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the article in the Sunday Herald from 6 March 2016, entitled “Huge drop in construction safety inspections triggers fears for workers”? An academic from Stirling University in my constituency, Professor Andrew Watterson, who is part of the occupation and environmental health research group at the university, said:
	“Westminster has savagely cut the budgets of the enforcement agency, the HSE, over many years…HSE increasingly looks and sounds like a toothless tiger—a lot of noise and increasingly little action.”
	Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that description?

Stephen Hepburn: I do recognise that description. It is the work of academics and trade unions that has brought about tonight’s debate. They are bringing these shortcomings to our notice.
	There can be few worse experiences for a family than to lose a father, husband or son who has gone to work normally, like we all do, but, unlike the rest of us, has never come home. Even if a prosecution is mounted by the HSE, the agony of the bereaved family does not stop there. The delays between construction accidents occurring, then prosecution and conviction are excruciating. The problem is getting worse, not better. Families are being forced to put their lives on hold for years and years, with no hope of closure until they see those responsible for the death of their loved one brought to justice. Justice delayed is nearly as great a failure as justice denied.
	In 2005, the average time between the death of a worker and a prosecution, was over two years. Ten years later, it has increased to two-and-a-half years. I must stress that these are averages, so the worst cases are a lot worse. The HSE has admitted that in 15% of cases prosecution does not even begin for three to four years. Beginning the prosecution, however, is just the beginning of the judicial process. There are many further stages that need to be completed before a conviction is achieved. In 2006-07, the average delay between a fatal accident and a conviction was 985 days. That was bad enough, but the latest figures are so much worse. In 2014-15, the average time between a fatal accident and a conviction in construction was now 1,267 days—or three-and-a-half years. I need to stress again that that figure is just an average. Delays in justice can be a lot longer.
	Last week, Falcon Crane Hire was fined £750,000 following the collapse of one of its cranes in Battersea, which lead to the deaths of Jonathon Cloke, the crane driver, and Michael Alexa, a member of the public. That accident occurred in September 2006. It took nine-and-a-half years for justice to be done—nine-and-a-half years for the families of the victims of that accident to witness justice. I am sure the House agrees that nine-and-a-half years is far too long.
	The Battersea crane accident might be the case with the longest delay, but it is not unique. I can give other examples. There are other ongoing cases where delays are highly significant. In January 2011, in the worst single accident for many years, Daniel Hazelton, Tom Hazelton, Adam Taylor and Peter Johnson were killed in a construction accident in Great Yarmouth. In February this year, over five years after the deaths of these workers, the case was finally referred to the magistrates courts. The eventual conviction of those concerned is still to come.
	Given these agonisingly long delays, attention needs to turn to what the HSE’s response has been to the concerns that I and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, of which I am a proud member, have raised—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If there is a case before the courts, we should not comment on that case. We really ought to be aware that we do not want to put the House in the position of seeming to prejudge an individual case.

Stephen Hepburn: Thank you for that advice, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	UCATT and I have raised concerns about the delays in prosecutions and convictions. In response, the HSE says that the delays are due to other bodies and agencies, such as the police, the coroners’ courts and even the justice system itself, especially if the matter is referred to the Crown Court. In other words, the HSE is saying it is not its fault.
	Well, this House and the families of the victims of construction workers deserve to know exactly who is to blame. The one group certainly not to blame is the victims and their families who are being treated in such an abominable manner. It is time for the HSE to stop passing the buck and blaming others. These are straightforward cases where a worker has died. They are not major inquiries into a war, or how the Government covered up their failures following Hillsborough. They should not take this long. These cases are straightforward. If these problems are to be laid at the door of the HSE, we need to know whether they are a result of the 35% real-terms grant cuts the organisation has suffered over the last five years, as was mentioned earlier.
	At the start of my contribution, I said how important it was that the HSE had a high profile in order to discourage the breaking of safety laws in construction. There is another area where its performance has been found wanting. A freedom of information request by UCATT has revealed that since 2012-13, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, the number of unannounced inspections made in the construction industry in the UK has declined by 8.7%. This decline occurred at a time when the industry was expanding and the number of sites in operation was increasing, following years of decline owing to the recession and Government cuts.
	Within that overall decline were some truly shocking figures: the number of inspections in Scotland has dropped by 55%; in my region of the north-east, the number is down by 28.5%; in the north-west, the figures have declined by nearly a third; and in the south-east, where construction is booming, the number is down by 19%.

Steven Paterson: There are numbers that make this even clearer. The hon. Gentleman referred to the 55.7% drop. Some years ago, there were 1,248 inspections, but that has dropped to 552. It just shows how big a swing it there has been.

Stephen Hepburn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the statistics more graphic and showing how disgraceful they are.
	These inspections are vital. They are the deterrent that keeps the industry honest and observant of safety laws. If companies think they will not be inspected and that there will never be a surprise knock at the door, the HSE loses all its authority in pressurising companies not to break safety laws. Laws will be flouted, workers will be put in danger and tragedies will occur. The House needs to know why the number of inspections is declining in an industry that is growing. Is it due to the cuts to the HSE’s budget, which must be affecting front-line services, is it because of the Government’s pressure to cut so-called red tape, or is it because the leadership of the HSE does not believe that such inspections are necessary?
	I hope that my contribution today underlines just how vital it is that the HSE is given the resources, powers and confidence to do its job effectively. That means making sure that workplaces are safe for workers; that if laws are broken, action is taken quickly to resolve problems; that if a workplace tragedy should occur and if there is guilt, those responsible are punished and their penalties properly publicised; and that the quest for justice does not drag on indefinitely. Only by achieving these aims can the HSE properly play its role in keeping workers safe. I hope the Minister will agree and confirm that action will be taken to ensure that the problems I and others have addressed this evening are resolved.

Justin Tomlinson: It is a pleasure to respond to this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) on securing it and welcome the opportunity to respond to his concerns. I know he is very active in this area, having received several parliamentary questions on it in recent weeks, and that his interest is long standing.
	The hon. Gentleman made a powerful speech. He rightly wishes to hold to account duty holders who fail to manage serious risks to their workers in the construction industry—failures that can give rise to indescribable suffering for loved ones. That is a desire we all share on both sides of the House. My thoughts go out to all the families of those tragically killed when working in the construction industry, particularly those recently affected by the catastrophic building collapse at the Didcot power station.
	The House will be interested to hear that recovery operations on the debris pile of the collapsed structure at Didcot resumed at the weekend, with the aim of recovering the missing men as quickly as possible while ensuring that no harm comes to the recovery workers. HSE’s main role at Didcot is to investigate jointly with Thames Valley police the circumstances of the incident to find out what went so tragically wrong with the demolition process.
	I tribute to the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who have been very active throughout recent weeks making representations on behalf of their constituents. I formally put on record my thanks to all the professionals who have been working tirelessly to try to resolve this as quickly as possible, particularly for the families still waiting for conclusions about their loved ones.
	The investigation of workplace fatalities is HSE’s top operational priority. Fatal incidents are investigated by HSE to determine the underlying causes; to learn lessons and prevent recurrence; to establish whether there have been breaches of health and safety law; and, if so, to hold those responsible to account though the criminal courts. HSE’s enforcement policy statement makes it clear that where a failure to comply with the law has caused death, the expectation is that a prosecution will result.
	It is clearly in everyone’s interests—especially those of the bereaved—that fatal incident investigations and decisions about any prosecution proceed as quickly as possible; the hon. Member for Jarrow made that point very powerfully in his speech. However, some investigations can be complex, involving painstaking forensic analysis, interviewing large numbers of witnesses and examining the roles and interactions between a number of parties, including workers, contractors, suppliers, architects, designers and clients, some of whom may be based overseas.

Jim Shannon: We had an event in the last Parliament that HSE and the industry attended. An issue about equipment being up to the British standard was brought to our attention. Are checks regularly performed on safety equipment such as helmets to ensure it matches the British standard, as we believe it should?

Justin Tomlinson: I shall come on to the point about proactive inspections, which the hon. Gentleman raised in an earlier intervention. I shall cover this issue. Checking against standards is an important point to highlight.
	Several factors can affect the pace at which fatal accidents are investigated before any prosecution can be brought to court. The police normally assume primacy for the investigation to identify whether serious offences, such as corporate manslaughter, are involved. This can take many months, or in some cases years, during which HSE is unable to initiate proceedings. The police and Crown Prosecution Service might be in charge of the case right through to any court cases.
	In the majority of cases, once HSE has primacy, a prosecution cannot start until after the coroner’s inquest. This does not always happen quickly and sometimes further evidence emerges at an inquest and HSE has to make further inquiries. Once a defendant has been charged, it can take several months before the case comes to trial, especially if it is defended in the Crown court.
	The hon. Member for Jarrow has publicly raised concerns that, on average, it takes nearly three and a half years from the death of a worker to the point at which those responsible are convicted. I questioned that when I became the Minister and had my first briefings. We all agree that we want this period to be as short as possible, and HSE works closely with its partner agencies, the Courts Service and its counterparts in Scotland, to minimise any delays.
	HSE has a performance standard for completing investigations of fatal incidents within 12 months of receiving primacy. Currently, more than 80% of prosecution decisions for construction incidents meet this standard, and most take considerably less time. Indeed, half of HSE’s decisions to prosecute are made within two years of the date of a fatal construction incident, which includes any time during which the police had primacy and a coroner’s inquest decision was awaited.
	HSE has signed the work-related deaths protocol with fellow regulators to ensure that investigations are completed and that any decision to prosecute is made as quickly as possible, taking into account the nature of the case. There is now a new practical guide for investigators, which should ensure that all parties work effectively together and that any prosecution is brought as soon as possible. Other than in exceptional circumstances, it should be no later than three years after the date of the death. To be very clear, HSE recognises the need to maintain pace in all these investigations.
	I appreciate how the hon. Member for Jarrow has raised through parliamentary questions the important issues in this area. We need to make it clear, however, that there has been no fall in HSE conviction rates in recent years; conviction rates for those prosecuted for breaking health and safety laws in construction have actually risen in recent years from 92% to 94%. The number of HSE prosecutions being approved following fatal construction accidents is not falling over time and there has been no increase in the time taken to make a decision on prosecution. The average number of days between fatal incidents and prosecution approval over the last five years has reached a relatively settled position. Average figures can be heavily influenced by the fact that a small number of complex investigations take several years to conclude, but the HSE expects the average time for inspection between its taking primacy and a prosecution decision to continue to fall in future years.
	In connection with the debate, I have asked the HSE to look again at the way in which such figures are presented, and to consider whether it would be possible to produce median average figures so that we could see how long a typical investigation would take. However, we must remember that we would do a real disservice to those who have lost loved ones if we introduced an artificial pressure to speed up investigations at the cost of quality, increasing the risk of prosecution failure through inadequate evidence collection and failing to learn lessons.
	The HSE fully recognises the important role that investigation, inspection and enforcement play in securing improvements. However, sustained improvement requires an integrated strategic approach. That includes ensuring that the legal framework and guidance are flexible and easier for small businesses to understand. I have received positive feedback on that, suggesting that there is much more engagement on their part. It also includes encouraging all players in the industry to play their part, working with industry and others to develop practical solutions, and encouraging industry supply chains to provide help and support for small businesses. That approach has contributed to a very significant reduction in the number of fatal construction incidents over the last 15 years, which is currently less than a third of the rate in 2000-01. I am sure we all welcome the fact that the number of fatal injuries fell from 5.9 per 100,000 workers in 2000-01 to 1.62 per 100,000 in 2014-15.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out that the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland makes surprise visits. That happens here as well, and rightly so, because it is vital to keep people on their toes.
	Members have given various figures for the number of inspectors in the HSE’s construction division, so let me give the House the actual figures. In 2011-12, there were 196. In 2012-13, there were 193. In 2013-14, there were 184. In 2014-15, there were 180. In 2015-16, there were 187, and the HSE is in the process of recruiting more. The position is clearly relatively settled, and numbers are currently growing.
	Construction work is, all too often, an unnecessarily high-risk activity. We know that the risks can be properly managed—I do not need to remind the House of the exemplary record that was achieved during the construction of the 2012 Olympic Park—but some duty holders still fail miserably. The HSE will continue to prioritise its investigation work in order to hold the right people to account for those who are harmed by construction work, and to do so as quickly as possible.
	If the hon. Member for Jarrow wishes to know more about the HSE’s work, I—or HSE officials—would be happy to meet him to discuss the matter further with him, along with representatives of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians. I thank him for raising this important issue this evening.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Electricity

That the draft Renewables Obligation Closure Etc. (Amendment) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 25 January, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 287, Noes 232.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Public Service Pensions

That the draft Public Service Pensions Revaluation (Prices) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 1 February, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 287, Noes 211.

Question accordingly agreed to.